^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 

\  — V— 7 

Presented    by    WfS^X  C>\<Sr\-V    VcA-V^OH~\ 

Dhnston ^ — 

SeclioH  .'-^7      O  ^ 


BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP 


AND 


INSPIRATION. 


© 


TWO     PAPKRS 


LLEWELYN  J.   EVANS 


HENRY   PRESERVED    SMITH. 


m 


CINCINNATI: 

ROBERT     CLARKE     &     CO. 

1891. 


Copyright,    1891, 
By  ROBERT  CLARKE  &  CO. 


Et.KrTHOTvrFn  by 

CAMPBELL  &  CO. 

ciNnwATi,  OHIO 


PREFACE. 


The  following  papers  were  lately  read  before  the 

Presbyterian  Ministerial  Association   of  Cincinnati. 

The  second  w^as  prepared  at  the  special  request  of 

the  Association.     The  first  was  originally  prepared  as 

part  of  a  discussion  in  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati  of 

the  relations  of  the  General  Assembly  to  the  teaching 

of  Biblical  Criticism  in  our  Theological  Seminaries. 

By  the  courtesy  of  the  Association,  of  which  grateful 

acknowledgment   is   hereby  made,  it  was  delivered 

there  instead  of  in  the  Presbytery.     The  bulk  of  the 

matter  and  form,  however,  w^as  left  unchanged ;  and 

this  statement  will  serve  to  account  for  the  literary 

expression  of  the  paper  as  here  presented. 

(iii' 


Biblical  Scholarship  and  Inspiration. 


I. 

By  LLEWELYN  J.  EVANS. 

It  is  the  purpose  of  this  discussion  to  present  some  of  the 
accepted  conclusions  of  the  best  Christian  scholarship  of  the 
day  respecting  certain  features  of  our  sacred  Scriptures,  as 
these  conclusions  bear  on  the  question  of  the  inspiration,  in- 
fallibility, and  authority  of  these  Scriptures,  and  on  the 
rights  and  obligations  of  those  who  are  appointed  to  direct 
the  study  of  them  in  our  theological  schools.  It  is  a  question 
which,  whatever  we  may  think  of  the  occasion  or  the  meth- 
ods which  have  precipitated  it  upon  us,  has  been  pushed  to 
the  front  by  tendencies  and  conditions  the  operation  of  which 
it  was  not  within  the  power  of  man  to  stem  or  to  control. 
Now  that  the  issue  is  upon  us  we  must  meet  it,  in  no  temper 
of  suspicion,  prejudice,  or  partisanship,  but  in  a  frank, 
manly,  straightforward  way,  and  in  a  spirit  of  loyalty  to  the 
truth,  to  our  church,  and  to  God.  As  to  the  personal  form 
which  the  issue  has  taken,  as  a  movement  to  challenge  and 
to  invoke  the  formal  and  authoritative  condemnation,  by  the 
Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America,  of 
certain  utterances  respecting  the  Scriptures,  and  Scripture 
truths,  recently  made  by  a  prominent  theological  professor 
in  our  church,  I  shall  have  very  little  directly  to  say.     I  am 

(3) 


4  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

not  concerned  to  justify  the  utterances  of  my  brother  pro- 
fessor in  detail.  In  that  particular,  my  friend  is  abundantly 
able  to  take  care  of  himself.  If,  as  I  confidently  hope,  the 
views  which  are  here  urged  shall  obtain  from  the  Church,  in 
its  ultimate  decision,  the  recognition  which  is  claimed  for 
them  as  scriptural,  evangelical,  confessional,  scientific,  rev- 
erent, and  indispensable  to  the  satisfactory  and  permanent 
solution  of  the  great  problems  of  our  age,  and  to  t^ie  har- 
mony of  religious  faith  with  scientific  and  critical  processes 
and  results,  I  have  no  fear  that  any  one  will  be  wronged. 
The  principles  which  are  at  stake  are  to  my  mind  more  vital 
than  any  personal  issue.  The  movement  of  which  I  have 
spoken,  and  the  utterances  in  the  press  and  elsewhere  which 
have  accompanied  and  interpreted  its  inception  and  pur- 
pose, convince  me  that  the  time  has  come  for  a  definite 
understanding  respecting  the  rights  of  Christian  Scholarship 
in  the  Biblical  departments  of  our  Theological  Seminaries. 
That  is  a  question  in  which  I  may  be  pardoned  for  feeling  an 
intense  personal  interest.  It  is  a  question  which  affects  my 
calling,  my  work,  my  very  hfe.  If  there  is  any  thing  in 
which  my  whole  being  is  wrapped  up,  it  is  the  study  and 
teaching  of  the  Word  of  God.  If  there  is  any  thing  that  I 
love  with  every  fiber  of  every  heart-string,  it  is  that  blessed 
old  book.  If  there  is  any  thing  for  which,  so  far  as  I  know 
myself,  I  would  gladly  lay  down  my  life,  it  is  that  this  Book 
may  be  known  and  read  throughout  the  length  and  breadth 
of  the  world  as  the  guide  of  lost  souls  to  heaven.  It  is  be- 
cause I  believe  in  this  Book  with  a  conviction  and  love  which 
grow  with  every  year's  study  of  it,  that  I  take  my  present 
position.  And  it  is  because  I  believe  that,  in  order  the 
sooner  and  the  better  to  accomphsh  its  mission  in  the  world, 
it  must  be  rescued  out  of  a  false  position,  and  be  put  before 
the  world  where  it  puts  itself,  that  I  would  fain  help  in  clear- 
ing off  the  stumbling-blocks  which  mistaken  zeal  has  put  in 
the  way  of  inquiring  souls,  and  dig  down  through  the  quick- 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATl'JX.  5 

sands  of  false  definitions  and  untenable  theories  to  what  Mr. 
Gladstone  so  truly  and  forcibly  calls,  ''The  impn-gnabk  rock 
of  Holy  Scripture.^'' 

As  I  have  already  said,  the  time  has  come  for  a  definite 
understanding  in  regard  to  what  I  may  briefly  call  the  Biblical 
situation.  What  have  we  the  right  to  teach  about  the  Bible? 
We  must  come  to  a  clear  and  cordial  understanding  in  re- 
spect to  that  question.  I  trust  it  is  not  vanity  that  prompts 
me  to  hope  I  may  say  something  that  will  help  to  bring  about 
such  an  understanding.  I  would  fain  believe  that  I  am  in  a 
position  to  understand  both  sides  on  the  question  at  issue. 
There  is  much  in  the  position  of  the  brethren  whose  course 
on  the  particular  issue  before  us  I  feel  constrained  to  oppose 
that  commands  my  hearty  assent.  I  honor,  I  hope  I  share 
in  their  zeal  for  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Word  of  God. 
In  their  opposition  to  every'  movement  of  thought  which 
tends  to  undermine  that  authority,  I  am  with  them.  If  I  be- 
lieved that  the  apprehensions  which  inspire  their  present 
action  were  well  grounded,  I  would  earnestly  support  it. 

I  furthermore  believe  that  it  is  all-important  that  there 
should  be  the  most  thorough  accord  between  the  work  that 
is  done  and  the  instruction  that  is  given  in  our  Seminaries, 
and  the  work  done  and  the  instruction  given  in  our  pulpits 
and  parishes.  There  should  be  the  most  hearty  unity  of 
thought,  feeling,  and  action,  between  theological  professors 
and  pastors,  in  our  common  work  for  the  Master.  I  believe 
it  is  incumbent  on  both  sides  to  maintain  this  entente  cordiale. 
It  is  incumbent  on  us  as  professors  so  to  carry  on  our  work 
that  the  hands  of  our  brethren  in  the  field  shall  be  strength- 
ened. We  are  under  obligation  to  do  nothing  that  we  can 
consistently  avoid  doing  that  will  discourage,  disturb,  embar- 
rass them  in  their  great  and  holy  mission,  and  so  to  train  the 
young  men  under  our  care  that  they  shall  go  forth  equi])ped 
to  reinforce  them  at  every  point.  On  the  other  hand,  I 
claim   from   my  brethren   reciprocity  in  this  matter.     I   ask 


6  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSriRATION. 

that  they  accord  to  us  their  confidence,  that  they  beware  of 
unjust  suspicions,  that  they  try  to  understand  us  in  our  posi- 
tion and  work. 

Good  old  Dr.  Johnson  used  to  say,  "  Clear  your  mind  of 
cant."  Let  us  try  to  clear  our  minds  of  cant,  of  mist,  of 
prejudice  in  respect  to  the  issue  we  are  trying.  I  can  not 
help  the  conviction  that  the  trouble  of  the  present  situation, 
the  ferment,  the  unsettlement,  the  alarm  which  prevails,  is 
due  very  largely — I  will  not  say  altogether,  but  largely — and  I 
must  say  mainly,  to  a  vague  and  inadequate  conception  of  the 
situation,  leading  to  a  confusion  of  terms  and  ideas,  and  re- 
sulting in  mistaking  friends  for  foes.  In  Matthew  Arnold's 
words : 

"And  we  are  here  as  on  a  darkling  plain, 

Swept  with  confused  alarms  of  struggle  and  flight, 

Where  ignorant  armies  clash  by  night." 

There  is  a  good  deal  of  unprofitable  mental  gymnastics 
going  on,  such  as  Paul  was  so  careful  to  avoid.  Some  of  our 
good  brethren,  I  fear,  are  "beating  the  air,"  and  quite  a 
number,  I  am  sure,  are  beating  the  wrong  man. 

There  is  an  uncomfortable  lack  of  definiteness  and  precis- 
ion in  certain  charges  which  are  made.  We  are  hearing 
much  about  "errors,"  "  dangerous  errors,"  "  erroneous  ten- 
dencies," matters  which  are  "calculated  to  unsettle  faith." 
What  are  these  "errors?"  I  suspect,  if  our  brethren  who 
complain  of  these  things  should  undertake  to  frame  a  declara- 
tion, after  the  model  of  the  Auburn  Declaration,  setting  forth 
in  black  and  white,  first  in  the  light  of  Scripture,  and  then  in 
the  light  of  the  Confession,  on  this  side  the  Error,  and  over 
against  it  the  True  Doctrine,  the  case  would  begin  to  look  very 
differently  from  what  it  does.  At  all  events  we  should  then 
know  precisely  where  we  are,  and  exactly  what  we  are  talk- 
ing about.  Differences  often  arise  from  ambiguities.  We 
use  the  same  word  in  different  senses,  or  we  convey  the  same 
thought  by  different  phrases,  and  then  appeal  to  the  General 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  7 

Assembly,  forsooth,  to  decide  between  us  !  Then  again  the 
world  is  moving  on,  and  it  is  getting  more  and  more  hard  to 
keep  up  with  it.  We  are  living  in  an  age  of  specialties,  and 
of  specialists.  Even  among  experts,  the  ninety  and  nine 
know  not  what  the  hundredth  man  is  up  to.  They  know 
that  they  are  liable  any  fine  morning  to  wake  up  and  to  find 
the  Babylon  of  their  fine  old-fashioned  theories  blown  up 
with  the  dynamite  of  some  experiment,  and  Number  One 
Hundred  dancing  on  the  ruins. 

Now  it  so  happens  that,  in  the  Providence  of  God,  for 
better  or  worse,  my  lot  has  been  cast  in  a  Theological  Semi- 
nary. It  has  been  a  necessity  of  my  position  to  give  some 
attention  to  the  leading  Biblical  questions  of  the  day.  For  a 
quarter  of  a  century  this  has  been  my  business.  I  trust, 
therefore,  it  will  not  be  regarded  as  presumption  on  my  part 
if  I  indulge  the  hope  that  by  something  I  may  say,  I  may 
succeed  in  bringing  some  of  my  brethren  into  closer  touch 
with  the  best  Christian  Scholarship  of  the  day  touching  some 
of  the  questions  which  are  involved  in  the  present  issue. 
All  I  claim  for  myself  is  that  I  think  I  understand  both  sides ; 
and  sympathizing  as  I  do  with  both  sides  in  some  things,  1 
would  fain  bring  them  nearer  together.  And  if  I  make  a 
more  liberal  use  of  the  first  personal  pronoun  than  is  gen- 
erally deemed  commendable,  you  will  understand  my  mo- 
tive. 

Allow  me,  then,  to  premise  that  in  the  study  of  Biblical 
questions,  which  my  vocation  has  made  necessary,  I  have 
both  striven  to  keep  an  open  mind,  and  earnestly  sought  the 
guidance  of  a  wisdom  higher  than  my  own.  My  study  of 
the  history  of  the  interpretation  and  criticism  of  God's  word 
has  shown  me,  as  clearly  as  it  has  taught  me  any  thing,  that 
God  does  lead  his  people  onward  in  their  inquiries  of  his 
holy  Oracle.  I  know,  as  well  as  I  know  any  thing,  that 
progress,  wonderful  progress,  has  been  made  in  my  own  day 
in  the   knowledge  of  the  Word.      I   do  not   claim   that   all 


5  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

movement  has  been  progress,  or  that  every  "  find  "  has  been 
a  gain.  I  am  well  aware  that  in  Biblical  science,  as  in  every 
science,  there  are  rash  speculations,  unproved  hypotheses, 
wild  and  dangerous  vagaries.  Some  corners  of  the  field  are 
full  of  will-o'-the-wisps,  illusive,  unsubstantial,  unsafe,  gleam- 
ing, I  fear,  with  a  light  that  is  not  from  heaven. 

But  on  the  other  hand,  there  are  conclusions  in  this  field 
which  all  whose  judgment  is  worth  any  thing  are  agreed  in 
regarding  as  substantially  established.  There  are  other  con- 
clusions which  must  fairly  be  conceded  to  have  a  strong  bal- 
ance of  probability  in  their  favor.  These  conclusions  must 
be  reckoned  with.  Whether  we  accept  them,  or  reject  them, 
the  data  on  which  they  are  based  must  be  satisfactorily  ex- 
plained. There  are  certain  ascertained  facts — so  far  as  any 
historical  data  can  be  called  facts — bearing  on  the  structure 
of  the  Bible,  bearing  on  the  historical  accuracy  of  particular 
statements  in  the  Book,  bearing  on  the  inspiration  of  Script- 
ure— facts  bearing,  that  is,  on  the  mode  in  which  the  accu- 
racy, the  infallibility,  the  inspiration,  the  authority  of  Script- 
ure must  be  conceived  and  defined — which  can  not  be  set 
aside  by  sneers  at  the  Higher  Criticism,  which  can  not  be 
offset  by  vague  denunciations  of  Rationalism,  which  can  not 
be  disposed  of  at  all  without  satisfying  the  demands  of  the 
most  enlightened  reason,  the  requirements  of  the  most  thor- 
ough scholarship,  as  well  as  the  claims  of  the  devoutest  faith. 
We  must  reckon  with  these  facts.  We  must  take  them  into 
the  account.  We  must  assign  them  their  true  value.  We 
must  make  them  the  basis  of  our  judgments  and  our  deliver- 
ances. If  the  theories  of  other  days  will  not  bear  the  press- 
ure of  these  focts,  they  must  go  to  the  wall.  There  is  no 
help  for  it.  If  your  definition  of  inspiration,  your  definition 
of  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible — mark  what  I  say  !  not  the 
doctrine,  but  your  definition  of  the  doctrine — if  that  defini- 
tion will  not  stand  the  test  of  the  established  results  of  criti- 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLvRSmP    AND    INSPIRATION.  9 

cism,  if  it  will  not  harmonize  with  ascertained  facts,  then  so 
much  the  worse  for  the  definition. 

Two  years  ago  it  was  my  privilege  to  attend  the  sessions 
of  the  Free  Church  Assembly  in  Edinburgh,  when  I  )r.  Dods 
was  elected  to  the  chair  of  Exegetical  Theology  in  the  New 
College.  The  candidature  of  Dr.  Dods  was  -trenuously  re- 
sisted on  the  ground  of  his  utterances  respecting  the  Script- 
ures and  their  inspiration.  The  attempt  was  made  to  prove 
the  unsoundness  of  his  views.  How  ?  From  Scripture  ? 
No  !  From  the  Confession  of  Faith  ?  Not  at  all ;  but  from 
Dr.  Hodge  on  the  Confession.  At  once,  from  all  parts  of 
the  house,  the  cry  was  heard:  "Dr.  Hodge  is  not  the  Con- 
fession." That  summed  up  the  situation  in  Scotland.  That 
sums  up  the  situation  here  to-day.  The  Commentary  is  not 
the  Confession ;  the  Confession,  let  me  add,  is  not  Scripture. 
But  Dr.  Hodge  is  neither  Confession  nor  Scripture.  Or  to 
state  the  case  more  broadly :  the  Scholastic  Theology,  which 
Dr.  Hodge  represents,  is  neither  the  Confession  nor  the 
Word  of  God.  But  there  are  dearly  beloved  brethren, 
throughout  the  Presbyterian  Church,  who  are  laboring  under 
the  delusion  that,  if  Dr.  Hodge  is  not  the  Confession,  at 
least  it  means,  or  ought  to  mean,  what  Dr.  Hodge  says.  I 
hope  to  show,  before  I  get  through,  that  it  does  mean  nothing 
of  the  sort. 

But  what  does  Dr.  Hodge  say  is  the  teaching  of  the  Con- 
fession ?  In  brief  this:  The  books  of  Scripture  "are  one 
and  all,  in  thought  and  verbal  expression,  in  substance  and 
form,  wholly  the  Word  of  God,  conveying  with  absolute  ac- 
curacy and  divine  authority,  all  that  God  meant  them  to  con- 
vey, without  human  additions  or  admixtures."  "All  written 
under  it  [the  Divine  influence  called  inspiration]  is  the  very 
Word  of  God,  of  infallible  truth  and  of  divine  authority ;  and 
this  infallibility  and  authority  attach  as  well  to  the  verbal  e.x- 
pression  in  which  the  revelation  is  conveyed  as  to  the  matter 


lO  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

of  the  revelation  itself."  '  Or  still  more  comprehensively  and 
explicitly,  in  a  joint  article  written  by  Drs.  A.  A.  Hodge 
and  B.  B.  Warfield,  we  are  told :  "  The  historical  faith  of  the 
Church  has  always  been  that  all  the  affirmations  of  Scripture 
of  all  kinds,  whether  of  spiritual  doctrine,  or  duty,  or  of 
physical  or  historical  fact,  or  of  psychological  or  philosoph- 
ical principle,  are  without  any  error  when  the  ipsissima  verba 
of  the  original  autographs  are  ascertained  and  interpreted  in 
their  natural  and  intended  sense.  "^ 

That  statement,  I  take  it,  gives  us  the  key  to  the  situation. 
It  is  the  premise  from  which  have  proceeded  all  the  move- 
ments in  our  Church  which  have  been  directed,  during  the 
past  ten  years,  against  the  affirmations  of  modern  Biblical 
Criticism.  The  critics  have  found  that  statement  of  inspira- 
tion impossible.  Therefore  their  conclusions  are  denounced 
as  dangerous,  rationalistic,  or  worse.  This,  however,  as  I 
hope  to  demonstrate,  is  not  the  position  of  our  Standards. 
On  this  point  our  Doctors  of  Divinity  are  not  the  Confession. 
But  before  coming  to  that  point,  I  wish  to  say  one  or  two 
other  things  about  that  statement. 

And  first  I  charge  upon  it  that  it  is  unscientific.  It  is  an 
abstract,  a /;wr/ affirmation,  not  resting  on  objective  facts,  but 
evolved  out  of  the  depths  of  the  dogmatic  consciousness.  The 
inductive  study  of  the  Word  of  God  was  practically  unknown 
at  the  time  when  that  definition  was  framed,  three  hundred 
years  ago.  It  proceeds  from  certain  postulates  respecting  what 
God  must  do  in  the  matter  of  inspiration,  which  are  assumed 
at  the  outset,  without  proof,  with  no  adequate  basis  in  the  facts 
of  the  case,  with  no  support  from  any  positive  declaration 
by  God  himself.     These  postulates  are   the  product  of  the 


'  Commentary   on    the   Confession  of  Faith,  by   Dr.  A.  A.   Hodj 

P-  55- 

''■  The  Presbyteiiaa  Review,  Vol.  II,  p.  238. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSIMRA HON.  n 

Scholasticism  of  the  Post-Reformation  age,  which  had  inher- 
ited the  methods,  and  followed  largely  in  the  lines  of  the 
Romish  Scholasticism  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Undoubtedly 
there  was  incomparably  more  of  the  material  of  Bible  truth 
in  the  Protestant  than  in  the  Romish  Scholasticism — for  our 
Schoolmen  did  read  their  Bibles,  and  study  their  Bibles,  and 
got  their  theology  out  of  their  Bibles— and  for  the  time  it 
was  in  many  ways  a  grand  and  mighty  theology.  But  their 
method — and  it  is  of  that  I  am  now  speaking — was  seriously 
defective.  Such  definitions  as  I  have  just  presented  could 
legitimately  rest  only  on  the  most  exhaustive  induction  of  all 
the  facts  and  phenomena  relating  to  the  revelation  of  God  in 
his  Word ;  first  collecting  and  collating  these  facts,  then  esti- 
mating, analyzing,  classifying  them,  and  lastly  generalizing 
from  them  according  to  the  most  rigorous  laws  of  the  induc- 
tive process,  omitting  nothing,  inventing  nothing,  assuming 
nothing,  distorting  nothing.  Is  that  the  case?  Surely  it 
would  be  a  rash  and  unhistoric  claim.  The  older  scholastic 
theology,  which  formulated  that  theory,  which  has  dominated 
our  dogmatic  definitions  down  to  the  present  day,  under  the 
influence  of  which  most  of  us  have  been  trained,  knew  noth- 
ing of  this  inductive  process,  did  nothing  of  it. 

And  now,  let  me  ask,  is  that  safe  ground  to  take  ?  Is  it 
safe,  in  this  inductive  age,  to  base  a  scientific  definition  on 
unscientific  premises,  to  reach  a  scientific  result  by  unscien- 
tific processes,  to  expose  the  citadel  of  your  position  at  a  thou- 
sand points  to  the  strategic  attacks  of  the  scientific  method? 
Remember  that  weakness  at  any  one  of  those  points  lets  in 
the  enemy.  Is  it  safe  to  stake  the  authority  of  the  Script- 
ures on  the  absolute  infallibility  of  every  one  of  a  thousand 
particulars,  every  one  of  which  is  subject  to  the  remorseless 
probings  of  a  science  which  cares  nothing  for  your  theories, 
cares  very  little,  possibly,  for  your  beliefs,  refuses  to  know 
any  thing  but  facts?     Is  that  safe,  when,  according  to  your 


12  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

theory,  the  loss  of  one  particular  means  the  loss  of  all."^ 
Even  Drs.  Hodge  and  Warfield  make  this  admission  :  "There 
will  undoubtedly  be  found  upon  the  surface  [of  Scripture] 
viany  apparent  affirmations  presumably  inconsistent  with  the 
present  teachings  of  science,  with  facts  of  history,  or  with 
other  statements  of  the  sacred  books  themselves.""  Surely 
it  is  not  inconceivable  that  in  a  number  of  particulars,  or  say 
only  in  one  particular,  that  presumption  of  unscientific,  un- 
historic,  contradictory  teaching  may  turn  out  to  be  more  than 
a  presumption.  Then  what  becomes  of  your  theory  ?  What, 
on  your  theory,  becomes  of  the  authority  of  Scripture? 

But  I  have  a  still  more  serious  charge  to  bring  against  this 
a  priori  method  in  theology  when  applied  to  inspiration.  For 
inspiration  is  a  Divine  Process.  What  this  process  is  in  its 
interior  nature  we  can  never  know.  It  is  God  that  inspires, 
as  it  is  God  that  creates,  and  we  can  no  more  say  how  God 
inspires  than  how  God  creates.  What  are  the  necessary,  in- 
terior, Divine  conditions  of  inspiration  ?  What  do  we  know 
about  that  ?  What  can  we  know  about  that  ?  All  Ave  can 
know  about  it  must  be  derived  from  the  terms  which  describe 
it,  the  characteristics  which  it  exhibits,  the  concrete  result 
which  it  produces,  the  effects  which  follow  it.  And  so  I 
charge  further  upon  this  a  prioj'i  definition  of  inspiration, 
that  it  is  not  only  unscientific,  but  irreverent,  presumptuous, 
lacking  in  the  humility  with  which  we  should  approach  a  Di- 
vine Supernatural  Fact.  Of  course  I  do  not  mean  to  charge 
conscious  irreverence  or  presumption  on  those  who  frame  or 
hold  this  theory,  but  remembering  that  unconscious  faults  at- 
tach to  the  best  of  men,  I  believe  that  Charles  Kingsley  never 
said  a  truer  or  a  finer  thini;  than  that   "there  is  an  intimate 


'  "A  proved  error  in  Scripture  contradicts  not  only  our  doctrine, 
but  the  Scripture  claims,  and  therefore  its  inspiration,  in  making  those 
claims."  Drs.  Hodge  and  Warfield,  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol.  II,  p. 
245. 

^  The  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol.  II,  p.  237. 


IRLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 


13 


connection  between  the  health  of  the  moral  faculties  and  that 
of  the  inductive  ones;"  and  that  "God  does  in  science  as 
well  as  in  ethics  hide  things  from  the  wise  and  prudent,  from 
the  proud,  complete,  self-contained  systematizer  like  Aristotle, 
.  .  .  and  reveals  them  to  babes,  to  gentle,  affectionate, 
simple-hearted  men,  such  as  we  know  Archimedes  to  have 
been,  who  do  not  try  to  give  an  explanation  for  a  fact,  but 
feel  how  awful  and  divine  it  is,  and  wrestle  reverently  and 
steadfastly  with  it,  as  Jacob  with  the  Angel,  and  will  not  let 
it  go  until  it  bless  them."  ^ 

Now  I  claim  that  to  say  beforehand  that  inspiration,  or  any 
such  Divine  process,  must  be  this  or  that,  that  it  must  have 
certain  characteristics,  is  to  venture  beyond  our  limits,  to 
step  in  where  angels  fear  to  tread.  You  may  ask  :  Is  not  all 
that  God  does  perfect  ?  Most  assuredly.  But  who  are  we, 
to  define  that  perfection,  to  formulate  its  constituents,  to, 
legislate  its  conditions,  to  decide  beforehand  that  it  must  be 
thus,  that  it  can  not  be  so,  that  this  is  indispensable,  that  im^ 
possible  ?  We  are  told  that  at  the  end  of  each  creative  Day, 
God  looked  on  what  he  had  done,  "and  saw  that  it  was 
good."  And  what  does  God  mean  by  "good"?  Absolute, 
abstract  perfection  in  every  particular,  flawless  regularity  in 
every  line  and  curve,  faultless  fitness  in  every  limb  and  joint, 
infallible  inerrancy,  no  wandering  stars,  no  jostling  bodies, 
music  of  the  spheres,  without  a  jarring  note  ?  That  is,  no 
doubt,  what  a  priori  speculation  would  have  affirmed.  If 
our  friend,  the  Dogmatist,  had  stepped  upon  the  scene  in 
time,  before  telescope,  or  microscope,  or  spectroscope  was 
known,  that  is  precisely  what  he  would  have  laid  down  for 
us  as  the  only  orthodox  view.  He  would  have  had  his  defi- 
nition of  perfection,  turned  out  of  his  machine,  square, 
rigid,  all  the  sides  exactly  parallel,  every  angle  ninety  de- 
grees down  ^o  the  infinitesimal,  every  line  as  straight  as  the 


Alexandria  and  Her  Schools,  Lecture  I. 


14  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

shortest  possible  distance  between  two  points  could  make  it — 
an  exquisite  specimen  of  logical  carpentering.  "Nothing 
else  " — he  would  have  assured  us,  with  that  superb  confidence 
which  would  be  so  imposing  if  it  had  not  so  often  imposed  on 
us — "  nothing  else  is  conceivable,  or  possible  in  the  prem- 
ises ;  nothing  else  would  be  worthy  of  God.  What  God  calls 
good  must  be  a  perfect  jesult,  complete,  flawless,  faultless, 
infallible  in  every  detail."  But  look  at  the  record;  what  do 
you  find  ?  Irregularities,  breaks,  misfits,  broken  joints,  de- 
formities, mutilations,  abortions,  collisions,  discords,  imper- 
fections all  the  way  along ;  and  God  back  of  it  all,  God  over 
it  all,  God  through  it  all,  God  in  it  all,  pushing  on  his  way, 
working  out  his  will,  and  accomplishing— yes,  a  Perfect  Re- 
sult !  Ah  !  brethren,  God's  Thoughts  are  not  as  our  thoughts, 
his  ways  are  not  as  our  ways.  The  designs  by  which  he 
works  are  not  patterns  for  patent-office  purposes,  not  pieces 
of  dilettante  china-decoration,  not  gesthetic  models  in  wax- 
work, "  faultily  faultless,  icily  regular,  splendidly  null."  No, 
sirs !  The  Patterns  of  Deity  are  commensurate  with  himself, 
they  spread  over  his  eternity,  they  lose  themselves  in  his  in- 
finitude, they  are  awful  with  the  glories  and  glooms  of  his 
unsearchable  wisdom,  they  are  rugged  and  ragged  and  riven 
with  the  thunders  and  lightnings  of  omnipotence  ;  they  sweep 
on — a  Flood  of  measureless,  resistless  might — from  the  Be- 
ginning which  has  no  beginning  to  the  End  which  has  no 
end ;  and  what  seem  to  us  to  be  flaws  or  fractures,  miscar- 
riages and  mischances,  are  swallowed  up  and  borne  along  in 
the  Infinite  Tide  of  his  Purpose,  the  flow  of  which  they  no 
more  arrest,  or  disturb,  or  weaken,  than  the  shattered  foam- 
bells,  or  wavering  reflows  of  the  Rapids  above  the  Horse- 
shoe Falls  affect  the  plunge  of  Niagara.  Flaws  ?  Yes  ;  but 
look  at  the  Plan,  massive  with  the  lines  and  the  curves  of 
the  Infinite  and  the  Eternal,  stamped  with  the  symmetries 
and  the  sublimities  of  a  Divine  Art,  charged  with  the  perfect 
purposes  of  the  Will  which  never  fails.     Frictions  ?     Yes ; 


BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP   AND    INSPIRATION.  15 

but  look  at  the  matchless  correlations  of  energy,  the  actions 
and  interactions  of  endlessly  articulated  forces,  that  deter- 
mine the  balancings  of  the  dew-drops,  and  swing  Jupiters 
and  suns  and  systems  along  their  vast  and  mighty  courses. 
Discords  ?  Yes ;  but  listen  to  the  Eternal  Anthem,  the  Ju- 
bilate Deo,  that  rings  from  star  to  star,  and  ravishes  the 
eternities. 

If  now  in  creation  God  can  work  out  a  perfect  result 
through  imperfection,  why  not  in  inspiration  ?  But  here — in 
inspiration — there  is  another  factor  to  be  taken  into  the  ac- 
count, to  wit,  the  human  factor.  In  the  production  of  Script- 
ure we  are  concerned  with  two  co-efficients.  It  is  not  God 
working  alone,  but  God  working  with  human  instrumental- 
ities, and  using  these  instrumentalities,  not  as  dead,  passive 
things,  but  as  free,  integral,  independent  personalities;  not 
as  a  mechanic  uses  his  tools,  not  as  a  magician  handles  his 
puppets,  but  as  a  Living  Spirit,  breathing  in  and  through  liv- 
ing souls. 

Now  it  is  a  law  of  the  Divine  Operation,  that  in  working 
under  finite  conditions  it  respects  those  conditions;  that  in 
using  created  and  limited  agencies,  it  has  regard  for  the  lim- 
itations of  those  agencies.  I  am  far  from  saying  that  no 
more  is  accomplished  than  would  be  accomplished  if  the 
agent  were  left  to  itself.  What  I  do  hold  is  that  the  more  in 
the  case,  the  supra-natural  plus,  is  supernatural,  not  natural. 
The  process  here,  as  we  are  all  agreed,  is  a  supernatural 
process,  the  result  is  a  Divine  supernatural  result.  So  much 
is  not  questioned.  What  now  ?  Just  this  :  While  fully  recog- 
nizing the  Divine  supernatural  co-efficient,  the  Divine  super- 
natural process,  and  the  Divine  supernatural  result,  we  must 
also  recognize  the  lower,  finite  co-efificient  as  continuing  un- 
alterably itself.  Its  qualities,  its  possibilities,  its  activities, 
its  inherent  limitations  remain  the  same.  There  is  no  change 
of  essence,  of  structure,  of  elemental  potency.  An  inani- 
mate agent,  when  supernaturally  commissioned,  does  not  be- 
2 


10  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

come  animate.  The  fire  of  a  miracle  is  never  any  thing  but 
fire.  The  pneuma  of  a  dead  wind  is  never  changed,  as  the 
Rabbis  of  old  thought,  into  the  pneuma  of  a  living  spirit. 
The  irrational  brute  is  not  transformed  into  a  rational  being. 
The  raven  that  fed  Elijah  was  nothing  more  than  a  bird. 
Nor  does  man,  when  supernaturally  influenced,  cease  to  be  a 
man.  An  inspired  man  is  not  God.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge 
says,  most  truly  and  beautifully  :  "When  He  ordains  praise 
out  of  the  mouth  of  babes,  they  must  speak  as  babes,  or  the 
whole  power  and  beauty  of  the  tribute  will  be  lost."^  In- 
spiration does  not  change  the  human  personality,  does  not 
efface  its  inherent  qualities,  does  not  expunge  its  limitations, 
does  not  change  the  finite  into  the  infinite,  the  human  into 
the  superhuman.  That  is  the  law,  the  universal  law  in  nature 
and  in  history.  If  we  engage  in  a  priori  speculation  at  all, 
it  should  be  along  the  line  of  that  law.  Reasoning  anteced- 
ently along  that  line,  proceeding  from  the  the  actual  to  the 
probable,  basing  our  conclusions  on  what  we  see  through  all 
the  works  of  God,  we  should  expect  to  find,  in  the  human  co- 
efficient of  a  supernatural  revelation,  the  inherent  limitations 
of  that  co-efficient.  So  far  are  we  from  being  entitled  to  say 
beforehand  that  God  must  make  his  human  auxiliary  super- 
humanly  infallible  in  every  possible  particular,  that  the  very 
opposite  is  alone  what  analogy  justifies  us  in  affirming. 

Brethren,  let  me  give  another  illustration  of  the  danger 
of  such  a  priori  speculation  concerning  what  God  must 
be  or  do  in  the  revelation  of  himself;  and  may  God  help  me 
to  treat  the  subject  with  all  becoming  reverence.  The  Mys- 
tery of  mysteries  in  God's  revelation  of  himself  to  men  is  the 
Incarnation.  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God,  .  .  .  and 
the  Word  became  flesh."  That  such  a  thing  would  be,  that 
such  a  thing  could  be,  is  what  no  human  speculation  could 


Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  I,  page  157. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  17 

have  anticipated,  what  no  human  intellect  could  have  deemed 
possible.  But  let  me  suppose  that  in  some  way,  by  some 
sweet  Divine  intimation,  the  thought  had  come  to  some  de- 
vout mind,  as,  for  aught  we  know,  it  may  have  come  to  one  or 
another,  that  one  day  God  would  become  man.  How  would 
he  have  conceived  it  ?  How  from  his  narrow  premises  must 
he  have  conceived  it?  Is  is  not  natural  to  suppose  that  he 
would  have  formulated  his  conception  something  after  this 
fashion  :  ' '  Will  God  indeed  come  down  and  dwell  among 
men  as  one  of  them  ?  What  an  august  spectacle  will 
that  be !  What  a  transcendent  type  of  manhood  in  all 
respects  will  the  world  then  witness !  What  perfection ! 
What  dignity  !  What  invincible  strength  !  AVhat  unapproach- 
able, awe-inspiring  majesty  1  How  immeasurably  exalted 
above  all  his  human  fellows  will  that  being  be  !  How  serenely 
impervious  to  all  the  disturbances  and  distractions  of  the  wel- 
tering moral  chaos  around  him !  How  divinely  exempt  from 
all  the  weaknesses,  the  imperfections,  the'  stumblings  and 
strivings  of  the  wretched  weaklings  to  whom  he  had  de- 
scended !  God  a  man !  How  can  I  believe  it  ?  But  if  a 
man,  then  surely  man  at  his  best !  "  A  natural  expectation, 
would  it  not  be  ?  Would  the  opposite  picture  have  been  an- 
ticipated, have  been  deemed  probable,  or  even  possible? 
What!  an  Incarnate  God  down  in  the  dregs  of  human 
existence !  passing  through,  sharing  in  the  infantile  de- 
pendence, weakness,  ignorance,  discipline,  growth  of  a 
creature !  coming  up  like  a  root  out  of  dry  ground,  with  no 
beauty  or  comeliness,  that  men  should  desire  him !  bowed  to 
the  earth  with  a  burden  of  unutterable  shame  and  anguish! 
and  sweating  great  drops  of  blood  in  the  throes  of  the  con- 
flict !  trembling  with  fear  and  praying  with  strong  cryings  for 
delivery!  touched  with  the  feeling  of  our  infirmities!  hclj^ed 
by  an  angel !  tried  in  all  things  like  as  we  are !  learning — yes, 
learning — obedience  by  his  sufferings!  tempted!  baffled! 
groaning!    weeping]    agonizing!    forsaken    of    the    Father! 


l8  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

Man's  feeble  logic  could  never  have  grasped  this  tremendous 
mystery.'  It  could  never  have  dreamed  it.  It  would  have 
protested  against  it.  It  must  have  pronounced  it  impossible. 
If,  then,  it  would  have  been  a  mistake,  nay,  as  we  now  see, 
a  mistake  bordering  on  blasphemy  (see  Mat.  xvi :  23)  to  pro- 
nounce antecedently  against  an  incarnate  revelation  of  God, 
subject  to  the  limitations  of  weakness,  of  ignorance,  of  bond- 
age, to  the  contractions  and  detractions  of  that  ineffable 
Kenosis  of  the  Godhead,  ought  we  not  to  be  most  reverently 
slow,  most  cautious,  most  humble,  in  pronouncing  against  an 
inspired  revelation  of  God,  subject  to  certain  wisely  permit- 
ted limitations  of  human  weakness,  ignorance,  and  fallibility?* 
What  know  we  of  the  Divine  Thought?  How  know  we 
what  Divine,  infallible,  and  perfect  Purpose  may  be  served 
even  by  these  limitations  and  fallibilities  ?  Does  not  Scripture 
itself  intimate  that  at  least  there  is  such  a  purpose,  and  that 
it  does  work  through  just  such  channels  of  human  frailty? 
Is  not  God's  strength  always  made  perfect  in  man's  weak- 
ness? Has  not  God  committed  his  treasure  to  earthen  ves- 
sels, that  the  exceeding  greatness  of  the  power  may  be  of 
God?  Did  not  God  choose  "the  foolish  things  of  the  world, 
that  he  might  put  to  shame  them  that  are  wise;  the  weak 
things  of  the  world  that  he  might  put  to  shame  the  things 
that  -are  strong ;  and  the  base  things  of  the  world,  and  the 
things  that  are  despised,  .  .  .  yea,  and  the  things  that 
are  not,  that  he  might  bring  to  naught  the  things  that  are  ?" 
If  God  thus  chooses  to  work  out  his  problems  through  surds 
and  fractions  and  zeros,  who  are  we  to  say  him  nay?  Breth- 
ren, this  is  God's  way;  this  is  the  law.     What  right  have  we 


'  It  is  enough  to  refer  to  the  Messianic  hopes  of  the  Jewish  people, 
their  rejection  of  Christ  because  his  coming  was  so  opposed  to  all  their 
preconceptions,  and  to  the  painful  slowness  with  which  even  the  disciples 
became  reconciled  to  the  reality.  How  instructive  are  Peter's  remon- 
strances and  Christ's  rebuke,  as  recorded  in  Mat.  xvi :  21-23. 

'  See  the  extract  from  Mr.  Gladstone  below,  p.  60  f. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSl'lRATloN.  19 

to  say  where  that  law  shall  stop?  to  decide  how  much 
of  the  earthen  vessel  shall  count  as  a  factor  ?  how  much  or 
how  little  of  the  human  folly,  weakness,  nothingness,  is  com- 
patible with  the  Divine  Purpose  ?  God  is  not  limited  as  to 
his  means  and  methods  in  communicating  his  will  to  men. 
Had  a  literal,  stereotyped,  incorruptible  infallibility  in  every 
jot  and  tittle  of  the  record  been  an  indispensable  requisite, 
God  had  a  thousand  resources  at  his  command  for  securing 
such  a  record.  That  he  chose  men,  yes,  men,  with  all  their 
ignorance  and  weakness  and  fallibility;  that  he  intrusted  his 
revelation  to  their  stammering  tongues  and  to  their  stumbling 
pens  ;  that  he  deposited  the  interpretation  of  his  eternal  ways 
in  earthen  vessels,  which  could  not  escape  the  corruptions 
and  mutilations  of  time ;  simply  shows  that  a  literal,  particu- 
laristic infallibility  is  of  less  moment  in  the  sight  of  God  than 
some  other  things ;  of  less  worth,  perhaps,  than  the  thrill  of 
a  human  touch,  the  glow  of  a  red-hot  word,  the  pulse  of  a 
throbbing  heart,  the  lightning  of  a  living  eye,  the  flash  of  a 
soul  on  fire;  of  less  worth — who  knows? — than  the  faltering 
of  the  pilgrim's  foot,  dearer  to  heaven  than  the  lordly  step 
of  Gabriel.  If  I  righdy  interpret  Paul  in  the  Tenth  Chapter 
of  Romans,  and  elsewhere,  it  is  one  chief  glory  of  the  Gos- 
pel as  compared  with  the  Law  that  it  is  not  a  formal,  stereo- 
typed letter,  but  a  personal  voice,  a  living  heart,  a  breathing 
soul,  the  effluence  of  a  divinely  magnetized  personality,  an 
epistle  written  not  with  ink  but  with  the  spirit  of  the  living 
God.'  Calvin  E.  Stowe  was  not  far  from  right  when  he  said  : 
"  It  is  not  the  words  of  the  Bible  that  were  inspired.  It  is 
not  the  thoughts  of  the   Bible   that  were  inspired.     It  is  the 


iSee  Rom.  x  :  8-10,  14-18;  xji  :  i  f.,  5  f.;  I  Cor.  i:  4f-.  '7  <"•  (21);  '•  = 
If.;  iii:  gf.;  ix :  2;  xii :  4f.  (12,  13,  27) ;  2  Cor.  ii :  14;  iii :  2f.;  iv  : 
6f.  (13);  vi:  If.;  Gal.  i:  15,  16;  Eph.  i:  17  f.  (19,  23);  ii :  10;  iii: 
20,  21  ;  V  :  7  f.;  Phil,  i:  7,  20,  27  f.;  ii :  15  f.;  Col.  i  :  3  f.  (6),  gf.;  ii: 
6f.;  iv:  5;  I  Thes.  i :  8 ;  ii :  12,  13  ;  2  Thes.  i:  3  f.,  11  f.  Cf.  I  Pet. 
ii:  5  f.,  g{.,  II  f.,  15  f.;   iii :  i  f.,  15  f.;   iv  :  10  f. 


20  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

men  who  wrote  the  Bible  that  were  inspired."  '  I  feel  con- 
strained, accordingly,  to  protest  against  the  a  priori  assump- 
tion that  God  can  not  or  will  not  inspire  men  without  making 
them  infallible  as  himself,  as  unscientific,  against  all  analogy, 
irreverent,  and  presumptuous,  as  well  as  unscriptural  and 
contradicted  by  the  facts. 

In  all  humility,  therefore,  instead  of  dictating  what  God 
must  do,  let  us  inquire  reverently  what  God  has  done,  how 
God  has  spoken ;  in  what  form,  really,  actually,  concretely, 
practically,  the  revelation  of  his  will  has  come  to  men.  It  is 
a  theme  on  which  volumes  might  be  written.  I  can  at  this 
time  only  single  out  a  few  salient  points.  And  as  my  own 
particular  field  of  study  is  the  New  Testament,  I  will  limit 
the  present  discussion  to  that  field.  There  is  this  advantage, 
also,  in  looking  at  this  department  of  the  subject :  that  if  the 
theory  I  am  opposing  is  valid  anywhere,  it  applies  to  the  New 
Testament;  if  it  breaks  down  there,  it  will  hold  nowhere. 

I  must  call  attention  at  the  outset  to  the  disadvantage  under 
which  the  defense  even  of  the  best  attested  conclusions  of 
modern  criticism  labors  from  the  serious  lack  of  acquaintance 
with  these  conclusions  which  the  attacks  made  upon  them 
generally  betray.  Most  of  the  discussions  which  have  come 
under  my  notice  in  our  religious  journals  and  elsewhere 
evince  a  quite  inadequate  appreciation  of  the  present  situa- 
tion as  touching  Biblical  Science.  As  against  the  conclusions 
of  to-day,  they  are  for  the  most  part  as  ineffectual  as  the  guns 
of  i860  would  be  against  an  iron-clad  ship  or  fort  of  1890. 
These  three  decades  have  effected  an  enormous  change,  a 
revolution,  in  fact,  in  the  problems  to  be  solved,  in  the  diffi- 
culties to  be  removed,  in  the  positions  to  be  assumed  in  the 
defense  of  the  truth. 

Let  me  give  one  illustration :  These  thirty  years  have  wit- 
nessed the  birth  and  early  growth  of  one  new  and  most  im- 


*  History  of  Books  of  the  Bible,  p.  19. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  2  1 

portant  branch  of  Biblical  Science.  I  refer  to  Uiblical  The- 
ology, the  very  chair  out  of  which  the  utterances  have  pro- 
ceeded which  have  occasioned  the  present  agitation.  Thirty 
years  ago  that  science,  as  it  is  understood  and  prosecuted  to-day, 
was  unknown.  It  is  a  young  discipline  as  yet,  with  much  work 
before  it,  but  entering  vigorously  on  its  career,  blazing  its  way, 
proceeding  on  lines  of  its  own,  working  by  methods  of  its  own, 
and  elaborating  results  which  have  their  distinct  place  and  value 
in  the  science  of  the  Bible.  Young  as  it  is,  it  has  already  ac- 
complished marvels.  It  has  opened  up  new  vistas  of  thought, 
established  new  starting-points  of  inquiry.  It  has  pro- 
pounded, and  is  daily  propounding  new  questions  to  solve. 
It  is  necessitating  new  solutions  of  old  questions.  It  is  bring- 
ing old  facts  into  new  foci,  as  well  as  bringing  new  facts  to 
light.  It  is  putting  old  truths  under  new  lights,  and  if  not 
discovering  new  truths,  it  is  at  least  compelling  new  and 
larger  statements  of  the  old  eternal  verities.  Its  conclusions 
can  not  fail  to  have  a  most  important  and  decisive  bearing 
on  the  religious  and  theological  thought  of  the  future.  And 
yet  I  have  seen  in  our  religious  journals  articles  and  para- 
graphs criticizing,  and  even  resenting,  the  claims  put  forth 
in  behalf  of  Biblical  Theology,  as  though  the  advocates  of 
that  science  were  advertising  some  special  patent  of  their 
own,  or  vaunting  some  special  quality  of  their  personal  the- 
ology, to  the  disparagement  of  every  other.  The  same  sort 
of  objection,  proceeding  from  the  same  want  of  familiarity 
with  the  subject,  has  often  been  urged  against  the  "Higher 
Criticism,"  as  though  it  arrogated  for  itself  a  higher  level  than 
your  criticism  or  mine.  Those  whom  I  am  now  addressing 
have  seen  and  heard  such  complaints  respecting  these  sci' 
ences.  They  have  seen  it  argued  not  so  very  long  ago  that 
the  champions  of  Biblical  Theology  were  arrogating  quite  too 
much  for  their  favorite  study;  that  all  sound  theology  is  Bibli- 
cal Theology,  Hodge's  Theology,  Shedd's  Theology,  and  the 
rest.      But  can   this  sort  of  thing  be  accepted  as  competent 


22  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

criticism  ?  Systematic  Theology  and  Biblical  Theology  are 
distinct  disciplines,  as  much  so  as  Logic  and  Mathematics. 
Mathematics  may  be  logical,  but  Mathematics  is  not  Logic. 
Systematic  Theology  may  be  biblical,  but  it  is  not  Biblical 
Theology.  I  beg  your  pardon  for  dealing  in  such  truisms;  I 
only  regret  that  it  seems  to  be  necessary.  Biblical  Theology 
was  hardly  in  its  cradle  when  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  wrote  his 
three  volumes  of  Systematic  Theology,  and  I  know  of  no 
dogmatic  system  that  can  be  said  to  exhibit  any  distinct  con- 
sciousness or  trace  of  the  influence  of  the  sister  science. 
The  methods  of  the  two  are  in  fact  well-nigh  incompatible. 
Dogmatic  Theology  is  largely  deductive ;  Biblical  Theology, 
inductive.  The  former  aims  to  be  systematic  and  logical; 
the  latter  critical  and  exegetical.  The  one  deals  with  re- 
vealed truth  chiefly  in  its  abstract  forms;  the  other,  in  its 
concrete,  historic,  and  personal  expressions.^  Systematic 
Theology  lumps  all  the  books  of  the  Bible  together,  arranges 
their  miscellaneous  contents  around  some  philosophic  center, 
or  along  certain  logical  lines,  picking  out  one  passage  here, 
another  passage  there,  as  the  exigency  on  the  one  side,  and 
the  fitness  on  the  other,  seem  to  justify ;  disregarding,  or  at 
most  regarding  only  in  a  very  meager  way,  the  different  con- 
nections, the  variant  types,  the  remote  and  often  antithetic 
points  of  view,  the  gradual  evolutions,  the  higher  and  lower 
planes  of  thought  and  belief.  Biblical  Theology  studies  the 
Bible  as  Astronomy  studies  the  heavens ;  each  star  or  planet — 
Sirius,  Mars,  Mercury,  Venus — in  its  own  place,  orbit,  life, 
development,  movement,  the  minor  systems,  Jupiter  and  Sa- 
turn, with  their  moons,  the  constellations,  asteroids,  nebulae, 
and  all  that  tells  the  story  of  the  heavens.     So  Biblical  The- 


1  See  Reuss's  History  of  Christian  Theology  in  the  Apostolic  Age, 
Introduction,  Chap.  I,  "Scholastic  and  Biblical  Theology."  Weiss's 
Biblical  Theology  of  the  New  Testament,  Introduction,  §  i,  "The 
Problem  of  the  Science." 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  23 

ology  looks  at  and  inquires  into  each  separate  star,  the  pro- 
phetic and  apostolic  clusters,  the  major  and  minor  systems, 
the  binaries,  asteroids,  satellites,  and  star-dust,  uttering  mean- 
while the  prayer  of  the  saintly  Herbert : 

"  Oh  that  I  knew  how  all  thy  lights  combine, 
And  the  configuration  of  tlieir  glorie  ! 
Seeing  not  only  how  each  verse  doth  shine, 
But  all  the  constellations  of  the  storie." 

Dogmatic  Theology  subjects  Scripture  to  the  logical  cate- 
gories, the  metaphysical  terminology,  the  polemic  accentua- 
tions, the  ecclesiastical  dogmas,  which  eighteen  centuries  of 
uninspired  reflection  and  speculation  on  the  contents  of 
Scripture  have  imposed  on  our  interpretation  of  the  same. 
Biblical  Theology  takes  us  direct  to  the  fountain-head,  to  the 
original  material  as  it  is  in  itself,  as  it  lies  in  its  providential 
environment,  as  it  gushes  out  of  the  living  well-spring,  as  by 
the  divine  ordering  of  time  and  place  and  person  it  pours  its 
living  contribution  into  the  great  River  of  Life. 

The  theology  of  the  schools  is  based  on  the  principle  of 
systematic  self-consistency.  It  is  a  logical  unit;  and  by  an 
instinct  of  self-preservation  it  ignores  it  if  it  can,  it  excludes 
as  far  as  it  can,  or  if  it  must  recognize,  it  belittles  and  atten- 
uates all  it  can  the  antithetic  truths  which  would  imperil  the 
unity  of  the  system.  The  Arminian  dogmatism  does  this 
with  the  Calvinistic  side  of  the  Gospel.  The  Calvinistic 
dogmatism  does  the  same  with  the  Arminian  side.  One 
Dogmatik  says  :  "  I  am  of  Cephas."  It  fails  of  absorbing  the 
best  part  of  Peter,  and  leaves  out  Apollos  altogether. 
Another  says  :  "  I  am  of  Paul."  It  excludes  John,  and  leaves 
out  one  whole  side  of  Paul,  absorbing  his  particularism  per- 
chance, but  failing  to  assimilate  his  universalism.  But  the 
Theology  of  the  Book  and  of  its  books  is  weighted  with  no 
such  logical  embarrassments.  It  aims  to  ascertain  what  n^ery 
inspired  teacher  has  to  say,  and  all  that  each  inspired  teacher 
says,  all  of  Peter,  all  of  John,  all  of  James,  all  of  Paul,  their 


24  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

antinomies,  their  ajta^  Xs^ofieva,  and  their  iLnaq  vooufteva^ 
their  polarities  and  their  parodoxes,  their  provinciaHsms,  as 
also  their  large  spiritual  cosmopolitanisms. 

It  is  not  strange  that  the  conclusions  of  Biblical  Theology- 
should  at  times  seem  suspicious  to  those  who  have  read  their 
Bibles  only  through  the  glasses  of  a  one-sided  dogmatism. 
There  are  more  things  in  the  heaven  and  earth  of  the  younger 
science  than  have  been  dreamed  of  in  the  philosophy  of  the 
other.  There  are  aspects  of  Redemption,  of  which  Paul,  for 
example,  is  full,  a  race-redemption,*  cosmic  reconciliation,^ 
the  re-unification  of  the  universe,^  of  which  your  scholastic 
theology  knows  little  or  nothing.  Dogmatism  gives  us  one 
phase  of  sanctification,  as  we  find  it  predominantly  perhaps 
in  Paul,  as  a  subjective,  progressive  process,  predicated  of 
the  Christian  in  this  life.  But  what  of  other  statements  in 
Paul,  such  as  that,  "  He  who  began  a  good  work  in  you  will 
perfect  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ  "  ?*  What  of  the  ob- 
jective sanctification  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews?  What 
of  "  the  purification  of  heaven  "  itself  in  that  Epistle  ?  What 
of  the  objective-subjective  sanctification  of  the  Apostle  John, 
in  which  there  is  no  recognition  of  progress  even  in  this 
life,  but  which  is  presented  as  a  single  absolute  fact?  If 
now,  by  the  study  of  Biblical  Theology,  I  have  been  aided 
to  the  better  appreciation  of  these  many-sided  representations 
of  Divine  Truth,  am  I  to  be  shut  up  to  the  one-sided  interpre- 
tation of  a  theology  to  which  this  method  of  studying  the 
Word  was  unknown?  Is  all  of  Divine  Truth  in  our  sys- 
tematic  theology?     Is   it   all  in   the    Confession  of  Faith? 


'  Rom.  V.  8  ;  xi :  32  ;  xv  ;  8  f.;  I  Cor.  xv :  22  ;  2  Cor.  v  :  15  ;  i  Tim. 
:  10;  Tit.  ii :  il.  And  cf.  Gal.  iii :  8;  Phil,  ii  :  lO ;  i  Tim.  ii  :  4-6. 
2  Rom.  xi :  15  (cf.  v.  12)  ;  2  Cor.  v:  19. 

»  Eph.  i:  10,  21-23  ;  iv  :  10;  I  Cor.  xv  :  24-28;   2  Cor.  v  :  17  f.;  Phil, 
i  :  21  ;   Col.  i  :  20. 
♦  Phil,  i:  9;  cf.   I  Cor.  i:  8. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSl'lRA  lli  )N. 


^5 


While   going  with  these  helps  as  far  as  tliey  take  us,  are  we 
never  to  go  a  step  further  ? 

Biblical  Theology  is  of  special  importance  in  thus  unfold- 
ing to  us  the  compositeness  of  Bible  truth,  and  in  giving  us 
the  key  to  its  rich  and  suggestive  variations.'  It  puts  us 
moreover  in  touch  with  the  man  who  speaks  to  us  in  the  name 
of  God.  We  feel  that  in  Peter,  in  John,  in  James,  we  have 
an  inspired  man,  not  a  divinely-manipulated  automaton.  We 
come  to  understand  why,  in  discussing  the  same  subject,  Paul 
says  this,  and  says  it  thus;  James  says  that,  and  says  it  so; 
why  the  first  Evangelist  gives  this  report  of  our  Lord's  dis- 
courses, the  fourth  Evangelist  that  report ;  why  the  second 
Gospel  puts  such  a  fact  in  this  light,  the  third  Gospel  in 
another.  This  Novum  Organum  of  Biblical  Theology,  call- 
ing to  its  aid  Criticism,  the  Higher  and  the  Lower,*  puts  us 
in  possession  of  the  human  personal  ecjuation  in  the  Lispired 
Word,  as  we  had  never  possessed  it  before.  It  reveals  to  us 
what  Farrar  calls  "The  Messages  of  the  Books;"  nay  more, 
the  mission  of  each  writer,  known  and  unknown ;  and  helps 
us  to  see  how  even  in  his  idiosyncracies,  even  in  his  limita- 
tions, each  is  fitted  for  his  particular  place  and  task.  Take 
the  Apostle  Jude,  for  example.  Look  at  him  as  illuminated 
by  Biblico-Theological  lights.  What  an  interesting  picture ! 
What  a  vivid  personality !  With  his  intense  Hebraism,  his 
prophetic  fire,  his  weird  imagination,  his  antique  eloquence, 
the  apocalyptic  tinge  of  his  representation,  his  mental  limita- 
tions even,  his  inability  to  get  entirely  outside  the  literary  en- 
vironment in  which   his  mind  has  always  moved,  with  its  le- 


>  See  especially  Weiss,  Bibl.  Theol.  of  the  N.  T.,  Introduction,  ?  i, 
(c).  See  also  the  excellent  remarks  which  follow,  (d),  showing  how 
a  complete  Scriptural  systematic  theology  must  build  on  this  composite 
basis,  uniting  all  the  variations  in  a  larger  synthesis,  which  shall  so  far 
as  possible  harmonize  all,  without  suppressing  any. 

»  For  a  list  of  helps  (in  English)  to  the  study  of  New  Testament 
Criticism  and  Theology,  see  Appendix  at  the  end  of  the  paper. 


tf6  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

gendary  exegesis  and  its  apocryphal  ingredients — but  what  of 
that  ?  What  is  a  cobweb  on  the  mane  of  a  Hon  ?  What  is  a 
fleck  of  soot,  a  speck  of  unassimilated  carbon,  hovering 
around  the  beacon-fire  which  warns  the  ship  at  sea  off  the 
rocks  ?  What  is  a  touch  of  mediaevalism  in  Dante's  Divine 
Comedy,  or  an  anachronism  in  Milton's  Paradise  Lost? 
What  if  one  or  two  minor  details  in  Jude  are  to  be  estimated 
in  the  light  of  the  man's  literary  environment,  and  qualified 
by  the  clearer  teaching  of  the  larger  Word  ?  Was  he  any 
the  less  a  prophet  and  an  apostle  ?  Did  not  the  Divine  Light 
irradiate  even  these  minute  opaquer  spots?  Nay,  did  not 
even  the  relative  crudity,  which  a  more  advanced  New  Tes- 
tament Christianity  soon  left  behind,  have  its  own  peculiar 
value  and  force  for  the  time  being,  and  for  those  whom  he 
was  specially  addressing,  and  even  by  virtue  of  its  being  no 
more  and  no  other  than  it  was  ? 

In  this  connection  let  me  note  very  briefly  the  vast  gain 
which  has  accrued  to  the  critical  faculty  itself  by  the  use  of 
the  improved  critical  methods  of  the  present ;  the  deeper  in- 
sight, the  increased  delicacy  and  tact,  the  more  facile  appre- 
hension of  clues  and  their  leadings,  the  finer  appreciation  of 
habits  and  drifts  of  thought,  of  undertones  of  sentiment  and 
experience,  of  the  modulations  of  mood  and  passion,  of  the 
nuances  of  phrasing  and  expression,  of  color,  atmosphere, 
tone,  grouping,  treatment; — the  culture,  in  short,  of  those 
literary  instincts  and  methods,  the  possession  of  which  makes 
our  age,  however  deficient  in  creative  power,  pre-eminent  in 
critical  skill.  That  there  has  been  a  palpable  gain  within  the 
last  half  century  in  the  application  of  expert  tests  to  the  criti- 
cism of  the  Bible  on  the  literary  side,  no  competent  and 
fair-minded  judge  will  deny. 

But  I  pass  on  to  consider  more  specifically  the  results  ob- 
tained by  the  application  of  these  tests  to  the  Gospel  record 
in  the  New  Testament,  and  the  significance  of  these  results 
for  our  conception  of  the   inspiration  of  that  record.      After 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 


27. 


a  century  of  exhaustive  investigation  and  sharp  discussion, 
the  most  sober-minded  and  trust-worthy  critics  are  now 
rapidly  reaching  a  consensus  of  judgment  on  this  most  im- 
portant and  vital  subject.  Certain  conclusions  may  be  re- 
garded as  established  to  the  point  of  the  highest  reasonable 
probability.  I  will  try  to  formulate  these  as  briefly  as  possi- 
ble, in  so  far  as  they  are  vital  to  the  decision  of  the  question 
before  us.'  Beginning  with  the  Synoptic  Gospels,*  it  is  now 
generally  admitted  that  in  the  form  in  which  we  have  them, 
they  are  derived  immediately  from  certain  written  sources. 
These  are  mainly  two  :  (i)  A  Fact — Source,  consisting  chiefly 
of  deeds,  incidents  in  the  life  of  our  Lord,  together  with  such 
conversational  or  other  remarks  as  naturally  accompany  them, 
to  which  may  be  added  a  few  short  discourses,  parables, 
and  the  like.  In  its  purest  form  this  Source  is  identified 
with  the  principal  groundwork  of  our  Mark.  It  is  found 
also  as  the  pragmatic  groundwork  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 
(2)  A  Word — ,  or  Logia — Source,  consisting  mainly,  though 
not  exclusively,  of  sayings  and  discourses  of  Christ,  which  we 
find  in  its  earliest  and  most  historic  form  in  Luke,  but  in  its 
fullest  and  most  elaborate  form  in  our  Matthew,  to  whom  the 
earliest  tradition  (represented  by  Papias)  accredits  it.  The 
primary  material  of  these  Sources  is  unmistakably  Apostolic, 
using  the  word  in  its  broader  New  Testament  sense.'  It  pro- 
ceeds from  credible  eye  witnesses  and  inspired  servants  of 
the  Word.     This  is  directly  asserted  by  Luke  (i,  if.)  and  con- 


^  For  the  authorities  see  Appendix. 

*  The  limits  of  the  occasion  for  which  the  paper  was  prepared  ]>re- 
vented  the  carrying  out  of  my  original  purpose  to  compare  the  Synop- 
tic form  of  the  Gospel  with  the  Johannean.  Those  who  are  familiar 
with  the  most  decisive  conclusions  of  criticism  on  this  head  are  well 
aware  how  greatly  they  would  have  strengthened  the  argument. 

»  For  which  consult  Bp.  Lightfoot's  Excursus  on  "  The  name  and  of- 
fice of  an  Apostle"  in  his  Commentary  on  Galatians. 


28  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

firmed  throughout  by  the  internal  characteristics  of  all  the 
Gospel  narratives. 

This  Double-Source  Theory  is  now  all  but  universally  re- 
garded as  the  key  to  the  solution  of  the  Synoptic  problem.^ 

In  addition  to  these  two  main  Sources,  there  are  other 
special  documents  peculiar  to  each  Evangelist,  notably  Luke, 
as  examples  of  which  we  may  take  the  opening  chapters  re- 
specting our  Lord's  birth  and  childhood,  and  ch.  xv,  with  its 
immortal  triad  of  parables. 

These  documentary  sources,  particularly  the  first  two,  were 
called  forth  by  the  inadequacy  of  the  primitive  oral  tradition, 
for  either  the  perpetuation  or  the  dissemination  of  the  Gospel 
record.  They  came  to  be  of  especial  service  in  the  instruc- 
tion of  catechumens ;  and  perhaps  the  most  satisfactory  ex- 
planation of  the  definiteness,  uniformity,  and  universality, 
which  they  acquired,  and  which  made  it  possible  for  them  to 
supersede  all  other  like  documents  of  that  age,  is  to  be  found 
in  the  catechumenical  use  that  was  made  of  them.^ 


^  There  is  still  room  as  yet  for  differences  of  opinion  respecting  the 
precise  relations  to  each  other  of  the  original  groundworks  and  present 
canonical  forms  of  the  Gospels.  These  differences  do  not  affect,  how- 
ever, the  more  essential  points  in  respect  to  which  substantial  unanim- 
ity prevails.  See  Prof.  Bruce  on  "  the  increasing  concensus  among 
critics  of  all  schools  and  countries,"  and  on  the  way  in  which  "the 
question  is  being  gradually  narrowed."  The  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol. 
V,  p.  630.  And  compare  Prof.  Sanday's  article,  "A  Survey  of  the 
Synoptic  Question,"  in  The  Expositor  of  February,  1891,  p.  87  f.,  and 
especially  his  Second  Article  in  the  March  number,  entitled  "Points 
Proved  or  Probable,"  p.  179  f. 

'  The  proem  of  Luke's  Gospel  will  be  found  especially  instructive 
at  this  point.  It  will  be  noted  that  Luke  recognized  the  twofold 
source  of  the  record  mentioned  above.  He  accurately  describes  the 
former  when  he  says  that  "  Many  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a 
narrative  concerning  the  facts "  {irepl  rav  irpayfiaruv),  as  transmitted 
from  the  original  '^eye-witnesses"  (ol  an'  apxfj^  avrdKTai).  He  well 
describes  the  latter  when  he  states  his  own  object  to  be  that  Theoph- 
ilus   "  might  know  the  certainty  of  the  words  wherein  he  was  catechet- 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  29 

Looking  at  the  way  in  which  the  Synoptic  Evangelists  have 
made  use  of  these  documents,  we  find  that  the  versions  to 
which  they  had  access  respectively,  while  substantially  identi- 
cal, must  have  varied  in  some  details.  There  is  internal  evi- 
dence also  that  each  adjusted  and  edited  the  material  in  his 
own  way.  Mark,  e.  g.,  has  stamped  the  groundwork  of  his 
Gospel  with  many  vivid  touches  which  may  be  distinctly 
traced  to  the  personality  of  Peter.  There  are  visible  indica- 
tions of  Luke's  own  hand  touching  up  the  record  in  his  Cios- 
pel,  not  seldom  producing  a  marked  variation  from  the  more 
original  type  as  exhibited  in  ALatthew  or  Mark.  He  has  a 
way  also  of  supplying  a  "motive"  for  an  incident  or  a 
parable,  which  is  lacking  in  the  other  Evangelists,  and  which, 
however,  it  be  explained,  at  least  increases  the  perplexity 
of  the  harmonizer.  Matthew  has  a  way  of  elaborating  a  par- 
ticular discourse,  or  of  grouping  parables  or  facts,  on  other 
than  strict  historic  lines.  The  Sermon  on  the  Mount,  e.  g., 
as  found  in  Matthew,  can  not  be  regarded  as  a  verbatim  re- 
port of  a  single  coiinected  discourse,  but  rather  as  in  the  be- 
ginning, indeed,  a  memorable  discourse,  the  historic  form  ot 
which  has  been  more  clearly  reproduced  by  Luke,  which 
Matthew  has  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  cognate  remarks 
made  at  other  times  and  places,  and  systematized  into  a  more 
complete  ideal  presentation  by  Christ  of  the  principles  and 
laws  of  his  kingdom.  So  also  in  the  report  of  our  Lord's 
eschatological  discourse,  Matthew  has,  by  the  introduction  of 
a  single  word,  ^'■immediately  after  the  tribulation  of  those 
days"  (xxiv,  29),  foreshortened,  in  a  material  way,  the  per- 
spective of  the  whole  phophecy,  putting  Christ's  final  coming, 
in  accordance  with  the  expectation  of  the  Apostolic  age,  in 


ically  instructed  "  [irtpi  wk  KaTrjxrfim  ^6y<Jv).  This  last  clause  is  also 
significant  as  to  the  catechetical  function  of  the  earlier  Gospel  records. 
Let  it  be  noted,  furthermore,  that  Luke's  statement  as  to  the  primary 
sources  of  the  material  of  these  documentary  records  stamps  them 
with  the  authority  of  credible  and  inspired  witnesses.     Ch.  i,  2. 


30  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

the  immediate  future.'  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that  the  editorial 
elaboration  and  adaptation  of  the  source-material  has  tended 
in  the  aggregate  result  to  multiply  and  intensify  the  individual 
peculiarities  and  divergences  of  the  Synoptics  rather  than  to 
bring  them  into  closer  correspondence. 

But  back  of  these  documentary  sources  lies  the  oral  tradi- 
tional Gospel,  the  first  form  which  the  Gospel  record  neces- 
sarily assumed,  which,  of  course,  disappeared  with  the  first 
generation  of  Palestinian  Christians,  and  soon  passed  over 
into  the  written  documentary  form.  The  theory  that  our 
Gospel  record  was  the  direct  transcription  of  this  oral  Gospel, 
which  was  for  a  time  quite  prevalent,  has  now  been  aban- 
doned by  all  the  leading  critics  as  inadequate  to  account  for 
the  facts,  although  it  is  not  denied  that  there  are  features  of 
the  record  for  which  the  recognition  of  its  influence  would 
still  help  to  account.^ 

Once  more :  Back  of  all  these  sources,  oral  and  written, 
lies  the  important  fact,  now  unquestioned,  that  our  Lord's 
discourses  were  spoken  in  Aramaic,  and  that  to  this  lan- 
guage must  be  referred  the  great  bulk  of  the  original  material 
of  our  Gospels.  The  first  form  of  the  oral  Gospel  was  un- 
doubtedly Aramaic.  The  first  form  of  the  Logia-Source  was, 
according  to  the  express  testimony  of  Papias,  Aramaic.  The 
basis  of  the  other  main  Source  was  Aramaic,  as  we  may 
reasonably  infer  from  the  study  of  Mark,  its  purest  representa- 


1  Whether,  as  in  the  text,  the  insertion  of  ivdeuc;  be  atributed  to  the 
editorial  elaboration  of  Matthew,  or  its  omission  to  the  editing  of 
Mark  and  Luke,  the  effect  in  either  case  on  the  prophetic  perspective 
can  not  be  ignored. 

*  It  should  be  noted  that  a  single  direct  oral  prototype  of  our  written 
Gospel  record  is  forbidden  by  the  fact  that  already  the  New  Testament 
record  reflects  three  types  of  the  tradition,  to  wit :  the  Marco-Petrine, 
the  Matthaean  (Logia),  and  the  Johannean,  leaving  out  of  the  account 
the  indefinite  floating  mass  of  Agrapha,  the  study  of  which  has  at  last 
been  initiated  by  the  recent  work  of  Resch. 


BIBMCAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 


3' 


tive.  The  same  was  true,  doubtless,  of  most  of  the  other 
special  documents,  e.  g.,  those  of  Luke,  to  which  reference 
has  been  made.' 

This  is  the  account  which  the  best  modern  criticism  gives 
of  the  composition  of  the  Synoptic  Gospels.  How  does  this 
account  bear  on  the  interpretation  of  the  record,  and  on  our 
conception  of  the  mode  of  its  inspiration  ? 

First  let  us  note  that  we  have  here  the  complex  result  of  a 
complex  process.  Our  study  of  the  Gospels,  and  especially 
of  "  the  Harmony  of  the  Gospels,"  has  made  each  one  famil- 
iar with  the  lack  of  perfect  correspondence  between  the  Gospel 
narratives.  The  synoptic  story,  I  need  not  say,  is  full  of 
breaks,  leaps,  omissions  here,  additions  there,  transpositions 
all  the  way  along,^  with  many  variations  in  matters  of  detail, 
which  by  no  means  affect  the  substance  of  the  record,  but 
which  are  an  endless  and  often  insoluble  perplexity  to  those 
who  are  in  search  of  an  exact  literal  harmony ;  Osiander,  e.g., 
one  of  the  earliest  of  our  rigid  modern  harmonists,  finding  it 
necessary,  in  order  to  maintain  the  perfect  consistency  of  the 
record,  to  introduce  Peter's  wife's  mother  as  three  times 
falling  ill  of  a  fever,  of  which  Christ  three  times  healed  her. 
We  are  all  familiar  with  these  characteristics.  But  the  point 
I  would  emphasize  is  this :  the  prevalent  critical  view  of  the 
structure  of  the  Gospel  record  puts  a  totally  new  aspect  on 
the  problem  of  solving  the  irregularities  and  discrepancies. 
So  long  as  it  was  held  that  the  "  original  autograph  "  of  each 
Gospel  was  throughout  the  original  production  of  the  author 


1  On  this  feature  of  the  case  see  the  very  interesting  series  of  arti- 
cles by  Prof.  Marshall,  now  publishing  in  The  E.xpositor  on  "  Tht  Ara- 
maic Gospel. ^^ 

*  "  The  Gospels,  and  especially  the  first  three,  can  in  no  sense  be  re- 
garded as  methodical  annals.  It  is,  therefore,  difficult,  and  perhaps  im- 
possible, so  to  harmonize  them  in  respect  to  time  as  in  all  cases  to  arrive 
at  results  which  shall  be  entirely  certain  and  satisfactory."  Robinson's 
Harmony  of  the  Four  Gospels  in  Greek.  Introduction  to  the  Notes. 
3 


32  BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

whose  name  it  bears,  that  Matthew  wrote  out  all  the  Gospel 
under  his  name,  as  Plutarch,  e.  g.,  wrote  out  each  of  his 
Lives;  that  Mark  did  the  same,  either  from  information  sup- 
plied by  Peter  or  by  simply  condensing  Matthew;  that  Luke 
at  least  wrote  out  an  original  recast  of  Matthew  and  Mark, 
with  additions  from  sources  of  his  own — for  this  was  substan- 
tially the  old  theory — it  might  perhaps  be  urged,  with  a  show 
of  reason,  that  these  differences,  being  known  to  the  authors, 
were  intentional  and  susceptible  of  an  explanation  to  their 
minds,  if  not  to  ours;^  that  they  were  in  large  measure  only 
a  question  of  order,  of  expansion,  of  condensation,  of  sup- 
plementation. Even  then  it  was  a  serious  task  to  reconcile 
these  divergences  in  such  a  way  as  to  meet  the  requirements 
of  a  verbal  inspiration.^  With  the  present  conclusions  of 
criticism,  however,  such  an  explanation  is  utterly  out  of  the 
question.'  A  recourse  to  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  original 
autograph  fails  us  out  and  out.  For  the  great  bulk  of  the 
Gospel  material  there  is  no  original  autograph.  There  never 
was  one.  There  was  no  ipsissima  verba  report  of  our  Lord's 
words  taken  down  on  the  spot.  They  passed  into  the  mem- 
ory of  those  who  heard  them,  and  that  in  their  Aramaic  form. 
The  two  basal  records,  the  Fact-record  and  the  Word-record, 
were  gradually  organized  out  of  those  memories.     What  of 


^  ♦'  Such  apparent  inconsistencies  and  collisions  with  other  sources 
of  information  are  to  be  expected  in  imperfect  copies  of  ancient  writ- 
ings ;  from  the  fact  that  the  original  reading  may  have  been  lost,  or 
that  we  may  fail  tc  realize  the  point  of  view  of  the  author,  or  that  we 
are  destitute  of  the  circumstantial  knowledge  which  would  fill  up  and 
harmonize  the  record."  Drs.  Hodge  and  Warfield  :  Presbyterian  Re- 
view, Vol.  II,  p.  237. 

*  It  may  be  well  to  state  here  once  for  all  that  in  this  paper  the  ex- 
pression "  verbal  inspiration  "  is  in  such  connections  as  the  above  used 
for  brevity,  according  to  a  common  usage,  to  designate  the  dogma 

of  absolute  verbal  inerrancy.  It  will  be  seen  further  along  that  I  my- 
self hold  strongly  to  the  theopneustic  quality  of  the  words  as  well  as 
thoughts  of  Scripture. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  33 

the  ipsissi?na  verba  in  that  organizing  process?'  With  the  in- 
creasing demand  for  exactness,  perpetuity,  and  a  wider  cir- 
culation, the  record  gradually  took  the  written  form.  How 
about  the  ipsissimd  verba  in  that  process?  How  close  the 
correspondence  between  the  oral  and  the  written  form? 
Who  knows  ?  What  modifications  may  have  taken  place  ? 
Who  knows?  Soon  came  the  need  for  a  Greek  record. 
Gradually  the  primary  Aramaic  material  took  on  a  secondary 
Greek  form.  How  about  the  ipsissima  verba  in  that  process? 
Did  absolutely  no  modification  take  place  ?  How  do  we 
know  that  ?  What  changes  may  have  come  into  the  colla- 
tion, the  combination,  the  didactic  and  catechetical  adapta- 
tion, the  dissemination  of  the  various  numerous  records?* 
We  know  nothing  of  all  this.  We  only  know  that  without  a 
standing  ipsissima  verba  miracle  running  through  every  step 
of  all  these  processes,  an  ipsissima  verba  result  would  have 
been  impossible.  What  right  have  we  to  affirm  that  such  a 
miracle  was  wrought  ?  Where  is  the  evidence  ?  Nay !  every 
advance  which  criticism  has  made  in  the  examination  of  the 
Gospel  record  has  only  made  it  more  and  more  certain  that 
the  varying  representations  of  the  record  can  be  accounted 
for  only  as  being  the  inevitable  accompaniments  of  human 
fallibility  in  the  complex  processes  through  which  the  record 
reached  its  final  form.     It  is  now  as  certain  as  any  thing  can 


>  To  relegate  this  traditional  stage  of  the  Gospel  record  to  the  cate- 
gory of  *'  Revelation,"  and  to  limit  "  Inspiration  "  to  the  written  formu- 
lation, would  be  the  height  of  logical  fatuity  and  self-contradiction.  If 
an  ipsissima  verba  inspiration  was  needed  anywhere,  it  surely  was 
needed  in  laying  the  foundations  of  the  record.  It  was  the  conscious- 
ness of  this,  doubtless,  which  led  Drs.  Hodge  and  Warfield  to  contra- 
dict their  own  logic  and  sharp  discriminations  by  saying  of  the  super- 
intendence which  they  indentify  with  the  essence  of  inspiration  that  it 
"  attended  the  entire  process  of  the  genesis  of  Scripture."  See  below, 
p.  34,  n.  2. 

*  Compare  Luke,  i:  I. 


34  BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

well  be  as  a  matter  of  historical  record,  that  when  one  evan- 
gelist says  that  two  blind  men  were  healed  by  Christ  near 
Jericho,  while  another  mentions  but  one  ;  when  one  describes 
the  healing  as  taking  place  on  the  way  into  Jericho,  the  other 
on  the  way  out,  these  variations  are  to  be  taken  at  their  face 
value,  as  representing  diversities  in  the  sources,  as  the  honest, 
but  immaterial  contradictions  of  honest  human  testimony, 
when  subjected  to  the  complicated  and  trying  conditions 
through  which  the  Gospel  witness  has  passed,  divergences, 
which,  so  far  from  discrediting  the  essential  fact,  the  miracle, 
only  corroborate  it  to  every  candid  judgment.^ 

But  it  is  claimed  that  inspiration  is  not  necessarily  con- 
cerned with  this  process  of  building  up  the  record,  but  with 
the  final  formulation  of  it.^     I  hope  to  show  further  along 


1  The  same  remark  applies  to  the  divergences  found  in  the  narratives 
of  the  healing  of  the  centurion's  servant  (Mat.  viii :  5  f.;  Lk.  vii :  if.), 
and  of  the  demoniac  of  Gadara  (Mat.  viii ;  28  f ;  Mk.  v:  if.;  Lk.  viii: 
26  f.)  ;  the  calling  of  the  Capernaum  Apostles  (Mat.  iv :  18  f.;  Mk.  i: 
16  f.;  Lk.  V  :  if.);  the  raising  of  Jairus's  daughter  (Mat.  ix  :  18  f.;  Mk. 
v  :  22  f.;   Lk.  viii  :  41  f.). 

2  "/«  many  cases  these  gifts  [Revelation  and  Inspiration]  were  sep- 
arated. Many  of  the  sacred  writers,  although  inspired,  received  no 
revelations.  This  was  probably  the  fact  with  the  historical  books  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  evangelist  Luke  does  not  refer  his  knowl- 
edge of  the  events  which  he  records  to  revelation,  but  says  he  derived 
it  from  those  '  which  from  the  beginning  were  eye-witnesses  and  min- 
isters of  the  Word.'  //  is  i?7imaterial  to  tis  where  Moses  obtained  his 
knowledge  of  the  events  recorded  in  the  book  of  Genesis  ;  whether 
from  early  documents,  from  tradition,  or  from  direct  revelation.  No 
more  causes  are  to  be  assumed  for  any  effect  than  are  necessary.  If  the 
sacred  writers  had  sufficient  sources  of  knowledge  in  themselves,  or  in 
those  about  them,  there  is  no  need  to  assume  any  direct  revelation.  It  is 
enough  for  us  that  they  tvere  rendered  infallible  as  teachers.'^  Dr.  Charles 
Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  Vol.  i,  p.  155.  "Inspiration  is  that  di- 
vine influence  which,  accompanying  the  sacred  writers  equally  in  all 
they  wrote,  secured  the  infallible  truth  of  their  writings  in  every  part, 
both  in  idea  and  expression,  and  determined  the  selection  and  distribution 


IBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 


35 


what  an  utterly  inadequate  and  unscriptural  view  of  insjjira- 
tion  this  gives  us.  For  the  i)resent  I  am  concerned  with  the 
Hterary  and  critical  aspect  of  the  position. 

Note  to  begin  with  how  strange  it   is  that  if  an  ipsissima 

of  their  material  according  to  the  divine  purpose."  [Observe  that  noth- 
ing is  said  of  the  inspiration  of  the  material.  That  is  not  assumed  as 
necessary.]  By  what  some  writers,  as  Doddridge,  Lee,  etc.,  have 
called  "the  inspiration  of  sttpetintendence,^^  is  ^' meant  />reeisc/y  what 
we  [Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge]  have  given  above  as  the  definition  of  inspiration:'' 
Dr.  A.  A.  Hodge,  Outlines  of  Theology,  pp.  67,  69.  Drs.  A.  A. 
Hodge  and  B.  B.  Warfield,  in  their  joint  article,  '■^  distinguish  sharply 
between  Revelation,  which  is  the  frequent  [but  not  constant],  and  In- 
spiration, which  is  the  constant  attribute  of  all  the  thoughts  and  state- 
ments of  Scripture,  and  between  the  problem  of  the  genesis  of  Scripture 
on  the  one  hand,  which  includes  historic  processes  and  the  concurrence 
of  natural  and  supernatural  forces,  and  must  account  for  all  the  phe- 
nomena of  Scripture,  and  the  mere  FACT  OF  INSPIRATION  on  the  other 
hand,  or  the  superintendence  by  God  of  the  writers  in  the  entire  process  of 
their  writing,  WHICH  ACCOUNTS  for  nothing  whatever  but  the  ab- 
solute INFALLIBILITY  of  the  record  in  which  the  revelation,  once  gene- 
rated, appears  in  THE  ORIGINAL  AUTOGRAPH.  It  will  be  observed  that 
we  intentionally  avoid  applying  to  this  inspiration  the  predicate  'influ- 
ence.' It  summoned  on  occasion  a  great  variety  of  influences,  but  its 
essence  was  superintendence.  This  superintendence  attended  the  entire 
process  of  the  genesis  of  Scripture,  and  particularly  the  process  of  the 
FINAL  COMPOSITION  OF  THE  RECORD."  The  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol. 
II,  p.  225  f.  I  can  not  resist  the  temptation  to  call  attention  to  the  ex- 
traordinary logical  confusion  into  which  owx  par  nobile  fratrum  dogmat- 
icorum  plunge  in  the  last  sentence.  After  "  distinguishing  sharply  "  be- 
tween "  the  genesis  of  Scripture,  and  the  mere  fact  of  inspiration,"  or  its 
equivalent  and  "essence,"  to  wit,  "superintendence,"  we  are  gravely 
assured  that  "  this  superintendence  "  [which  is  "  the  essence  "  of  inspira- 
tion] attended  the  entire  process  of  the  genesis  of  Scripture  [which  is  to  be 
"  sharply  distinguished  "  from  inspiration] !!  And  strange  to  say  this 
confusion  comes  immediately  after  this  solemn  warning:  "It  is  im- 
portant that  distinguishable  ideas  should  be  connoted  by  distinct 
terms,  and  that  the  terms  themselves  should  be  fixed  in  a  definite 
sense  !  "     Review,  p.  225. 


36  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

verba  infallibility,  secured  by  a  supervision  which  is  the 
essence  of  inspiration,  was  essential,  the  record  as  it  stands 
should  present  so  many  difficulties  on  that  theory.  We  have 
heard  of  prohibition  which  does  not  prohibit,  of  protection 
which  does  not  protect.  Have  we  here  an  infallible  super- 
visory inspiration  which  does  not  inspire  infallibility?  It 
looks  very  much  like  it,  if  we  are  shut  up  to  the  ipsissima 
verba  theory. 

Mark  again  that  the  difficulties  which  criticism  finds  are  by 
no  means  explicable  as  lapses  of  the  pen.  They  are  too 
closely  bound  with  the  warp  and  woof  of  the  record.  Struc- 
tural variations,'  dislocations  of  the  narrative,'^  the  transposi- 
tion of  events,^  in  some  instances  the  duplication  of  the  same 


^  As  in  the  reports  given  respectively  by  Matthew  and  Luke  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount.  Mat.  v  :  7  ;  Lake  vi :  20  f.  Compare  also  the 
structure,  introductions,  contents,  and  forms  of  the  discourses,  etc.,  re- 
corded in  Mat.  xii :  22  f.;  Mk.  iii :  20  f.;  Lk.  xi:  14  f.;  also  in  Mat.  x:  i  f.; 
Mk.  vi:  7  f.;  Lk.  ix :  I  f.;  also  in  Mat.  xviii :  1-35  ;  Mk.  ix:  33-50;  Lk. 
ix :  46-50. 

*  E.  g.  in  Mat.  (x :  i  f. )  the  ordination  of  the  Twelve  comes  some 
time  (cf.  xi :  i  f.)  before  the  events  recorded  in  ch.  xii:  1-21  ;  whereas 
in  Mark  (ii :  23-iii :  12)  and  Luke  (vi :  I  f . )  they  follow,  though  at 
no  very  long  interval.  Again  the  contents  of  ch.  viii-ix  come  consid- 
erably_  before  (cf.  ix :  35  f.;  xi :  i  f.,  20  f.)  the  events  of  ch.  xii ;  whereas 
in  Mk.  and  Lk.  the  order  is  totally  reversed,  the  events  of  Mat.  xii 
being  recorded  in  Mk.  ii :  23  f.;  iii:  1-35;  Lk.  vi :  1-19  (/.  c.  Mat. 
xii:  22  f.  not  until  Lk.  xi :  14  f.),  and  the  events  of  Mat.  viii:  i8-ix: 
26,  in  Mk.  iv :  35-v  :  43,  and  Lk.  viii :  22  f.  Again  the  calling  of  Mat- 
thew, which  in  Mark  (the  same  order  substantially  in  Luke)  comes  be- 
fo-e  the  contents  of  ii :  23-v :  21,  in  Matthew  comes  after  the  parallel 
parts  of  the  record. 

'  Note  e.  g.  in  Mat.  the  position  of  the  Galilean  tour,  comparing  the 
context  of  Mat.  iv:  23  f.  with  the  context  of  Mk.  i:  35  f.;  Lk.  iv: 
42  f.;  the  place  of  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  in  Mat.  (v:  i  f. ),  as  com- 
pared with  its  place  in  Lk.  vi :  20  f.;  the  order  of  the  three  tempta- 
tions in  Mat.  iv:  I  f.,  as  compared  with  Lk.  iv:  I  f. 


BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  37 

event  or  saying  in  the  same  narrative,'  these  surely  are  not 
transcriptional  deviations  from  the  original  autograph. 

Still  further,  on  the  ipsissi/na  verba  original  autograph  theory, 
textual  criticism,  as  it  restores  to  us  the  purer,  more  original 
form  of  the  text,  should  tend  to  eliminate  these  discrepancies, 
and  to  bring  the  various  representations  into  closer  harmony 
with  each  other.  What  is  the  fact  ?  The  very  reverse.  The 
more  corrupt  the  text  the  smoother  it  is,  the  more  in  harmony 
with  itself,  the  more  do  we  find  both  of  verbal  and  material 
assimilation  in  parallel  passages.  The  older  and  purer  the 
text,  the  rougher  we  find  it,  the  more  striking  are  its  indi- 
vidualities, the  more  sharply  accentuated  are  the  differences, 
the  less  conformity  do  we  find  to  a  standard  of  infallible  ex- 
actitude. 

Let  me  give  you  one  or  two  examples  :  In  Mark,  i :  2  f .  we 
have  two  Old  Testament  citations  from  two  prophets,  the  first 
from  Malachi,  and  the  second  from  Isaiah.  In  the  received 
text  these  citations  are  introduced  with  the  formula:  "As  it 
is  written  in  the  prophets."  The  true  reading,  however,  is: 
"As  it  is  written  in  Isaiah  the  prophet."'^  Here  the  false  read- 
ing gave  us  absolute  inerrancy.  The  true  reading  gives  us  at 
least  an  inexactitude,  which,  whatever  else  may  be  said  of  it, 
is  not  unqualifiedly  favorable  to  the  affirmation  that  the  name 
"  Isaiah  "  in  the  New  Testament  always  meant  one  particular 
man,  and  nobody  else. 

Again  :  in  Mark  ii :  26,  we  read  in  the  Authorized  Version 
(following  the  Received  Text)  that  David  "went  into  the 
house  of  God  in  the  days  of  Abiathar,  the  high-priest."  As 
a  matter  of  fact,  Abiathar  was  not  the  high-priest  at  the  time, 
but  Abimelech.  The  explanation  which  a  literalistic  exegesis 
has  commonly  offered  of  the  statement  is  that  Abiathar  be- 


*  Cf.  e.  g.  Mat.  V :  29  f.  with  xviii :  8  f.;  ix :  32  f.  with  xii :  22  f.;  v  :  24 
with  xxiii :  22. 

*  So  of  course  the  Revised  Version. 


38  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

came  high-priest  afterward,  and  that  he  is  called  so  here  by 
anticipation.  And  we  may  grant  that,  following  the  less  au- 
thentic text,  such  an  explanation,  though  not  the  most  prob- 
able, was  not  impossible.  But  unfortunately  Textual  Criti- 
cism comes  in,  and  proves  that  the  passage  should  read — 
" when  Abiathar  was  high-priest"^ — which  puts  the  old  ex- 
planation out  of  court  at  once.  Transcription  had  corrected 
the  historical  inaccuracy  out  of  the  text ;  criticism,  doing  its 
duty  honestly,  has  put  it  back. 

Once  more:  in  Matthew  (xix :  17),  where  the  ruler  asked 
our  Lord  :  ' '  Good  master,  what  good  thing  shall  I  do  that  I 
may  have  eternal  life  ?  "  Christ  answered,  according  to  the 
Received  Text:  "  Why  callest  thou  me  good?"  Mark  and 
Luke  both  give  precisely,  verbally,  the  same  answer.  So  far 
the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration  is  safe.  But  unfortunately 
here  again  Textual  Criticism  finds  that  Matthew's  text  should 
read — "Why  askest  thou  me  concerning  that  which  is 
good?"^ — a  difference  not  only  in  the  words,  but  in  the 
thought,  and  indeed  in  the  point  and  pith  of  the  answer. 
Thus  we  see  that  the  tendency  of  a  more  exact  knowledge 
of  the  text  is  to  accentuate  the  individuality  and  variations 
of  the  records,  so  far  as  the  nearest  approach  even  to  our 
original  autographs  enables  us  to  judge. 

And  now  is  it  supposed  that  we  solve  all  the  difficulties 
connected  with  the  preHminary  processes  in  the  building  of 
the  record,  by  throwing  the  responsibiUty  for  inerrancy  on 
the  final  revision  ?  Shall  we  say  that  the  inspiration  of  the 
Gospel  of  Luke,  e.  g.,  is  to  be  sought  for  not  in  the  material, 
not  in  the  documents  which  he  confessedly  used,  but  in  the 
editorial  compilation  and  elaboration  of  the  material  ?  ^ 
Surely  this  is  a  most  unsatisfactory  solution.     Of  all  the  make- 

^  So  the  Revised  Version. 

'  So  here  again  the  Revised  Version. 

'  See  note  3,  p.  34. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRAI  ION.  39 

shifts  to  which  the  theory  of  absolute  inerrancy  compels  its 
adherents,  this  is  to  my  mind  the  weakest.  Inspiration  a 
mere  matter  of  editing  and  proof-reading,  of  correction  and 
revision,  crossing  out  and  touching  up  with  the  pen  an  unin- 
spired record,  and  so  making  an  inspired  thing  of  it!  I  chal- 
lenge this  conception  here  and  now  as  unworthy,  degrading, 
belittling,  as  more  hostile  to  a  robust,  living  faith,  than  any 
thing  I  know  of  short  of  rationalism !  Inspiration — what  is 
it?  Thf,opneustia !  The  Breath  of  God!  The  Life  of 
God!  The  pulsation  of  God's  thought  and  heart  all  the  way 
throug  If  you  do  not  give  me  that,  you  give  me  stone  for 
bread.  "The  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  spirit 
and  are  life."  The  idea  that  inspiration  resolves  itself  into 
the  correction  of  a  date,'  substituting  one  man's  name  for 
another,  changing  a  number,  inserting  a  caption — important 
a§  such  particulars  may  be  in  their  way — such  an  idea  of  in- 
spiration is  suitable  only  for  Theology  in  Lilliputia. 

But  as  a  matter  of  fact  where  are  we?  What  have 
we?  Have  we  an  infallible  revision?  Have  we  an  iner- 
rant  result?  Have  we  a  New.  Testament,  or  an  Old  Tes- 
tament, with  absolutely  no  mistake,  no  inaccuracy,  from 
beginning  to  end?  I  know  of  no  respectable  critic  who 
claims  that.  Every  body  will  admit  that  in  the  processes  of 
transcription  and  transmission,  at  least,  some  error  has  crept 
into  the  book,  some  contradiction,  some  inaccuracy,  which, 
as  the  matter  stands,  can  not  be  accepted  as  the  e.xact  state- 
ment of  that  particular  matter.  But  is  not  that  virtually  to 
give  up  the  whole  position  ?  What  is  inspiration  for  ?  Surely 
to  advantage  the  reader.'  But  what  is  the  value  of  an  infal- 
lible editorship  which  does  not  secure  a  permanently  infallible 


1  "  God  gave  His  Word,  not  for  the  private  use  of  the  fifty  or  sixty 
chosen  men  to  whom  it  was  first  revealed,  but  for  the  salvation  of  the 
innumerable  company  of  the  redeemed."  Dr.  E.  P.  Humphrey,  Sec- 
ond General  Council  of  the  Presbyterian  Alliance,  1880,  p.  109. 


40  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

text?  Here  is  an  error  which  has  been  in  the  text  for  fifteen 
centuries,  and  which  there  can  not  be  much  doubt  will  stay 
there  now  for  all  the  centuries  to  come.  What  difference 
does  it  make,  so  far  as  the  readers  of  the  past  fifteen  cen- 
turies and  the  readers  of  all  future  centuries  are  concerned, 
whether  the  error  was  in  the  original  autograph  or  not  ?  How 
does  it  affect  the  value  of  the  record  to-day,  for  you  and  for 
me,  to  say  that  the  error  which  is  there  to-day  was  not  there 
eighteen  hundred  years  ago  ?  Your  inerrant  autograph  is  an 
abstraction ;  your  inerrant  text  is  an  abstraction.  Does  God 
hang  his  revelation  on  an  abstraction  ?  Does  the  present  er- 
ror destroy  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  as  we  have  it  ?  We 
all  say  not.  Then  why  should  the  original  error  destroy  the 
inspiration  of  the  Bible  as  it  was  first  given  ?  If  absolute 
verbal  infallibility  was  essential  to  inspiration,  does  not  the 
loss  of  that  infallibility  imply  the  loss  of  that  inspiration  ?  If 
it  was  essential  that  the  first  copy  should  be  inerrant  in  ev- 
ery possible  particular,  if  without  such  inerrancy  it  could 
have  no  authority,  why  is  not  the  same  inerrancy  essential  to 
every  copy,  and  where  does  the  authority  of  our  present 
copies  come  from?  You  say:  "A  single  error  breaks  down 
the  Bible."  ^  One  comes  up  and  points  out  an  apparent  error. 
Drs.  Hodge  and  Warfield  are  constrained  to  admit  that  it  has  all 
the  .appearance  of  an  error,^  but  that  if  we  only  had  the  orig- 
inal autograph,  etc.  He  is  a  busy  man,  and  cares  very  little 
for  hypothetical  abstractions  and  replies :  "  On  your  own  theory 
the  Bible  has  all  the  appearance  of  being  broken  down  by  what 
has  all  the  appearance  of  being  an  error.  When  you  find  your 
original  autograph  I  shall  be  pleased  to  hear  from  you." 
You  get  the  General  Assembly  to  declare  that  unless  God 


1  "A  proved  error  in  Scripture  contradicts  not  only  our  doctrine,  but 
the  Scripture  claims,  and  therefore  its  inspiration  in  making  those 
claims."     Drs.  Hodge  and  Warfield,    7Vie  Presbyterian  Revieiv,  Vol.  II, 

P-  245- 

*  See  note    i,  p.  32. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSFIRM  ION. 


41 


gave  an  absolutely  errorless  Bible,  he  gave  no  Bible  at  all. 
Your  people  construe  that  to  mean  that  unless  you  have  an 
absolutely  errorless  Bible,  you  have  no  Bible  at  all.  What 
have  you  or  they  gained?  I  thank  God  that  I  am  not  shut 
up  to  any  such  conclusion;  and,  most  of  all,  I  thank  (]od 
that  when  an  inquiring  soul  comes  to  me  with  his  difficulties, 
I  do  not  have  to  shut  him  up  to  any  such  conclusion.  There 
are  spots  on  yonder  sun  ;  do  they  stop  its  being  a  sun  ?  Why, 
science  tells  me  that  they  are  a  part  of  the  solar  economy, 
and  that  the  sun  is  all  the  more  a  sun  for  the  spots.  How  do' 
I  know  that  it  may  not  be  so  with  the  Bible  ? 

But  the  theory  that  all  the  errors  in  the  text  are  surrep- 
titious, that  none  of  them  are  to  be  referred  to  the  original 
autographs,  is  one  which  honest  criticism  finds  itself  unable 
to  accept.  Some  of  course  might  be  accounted  for  in  this 
way,  but  that  the  vast  majority,  and  especially  that  those 
which  present  the  most  serious  difficulties  are  later  corrup- 
tions, is  utterly  out  of  the  question.  I  have  already  shown 
how  this  theory  fails  us  in  the  Gospels.  Let  us  take  one  ex- 
ample out  of  the  Epistles.  In  Galatians  iii :  17  Paul  says 
that  the  Law  came  430  years  after  the  Covenant  with  Abra- 
ham. But  according  to  three  express  historical  statements 
found  elsewhere,  to  wit,  God's  prediction  to  Abraham  (Gen. 
xv;  13),  the  statement  of  the  book  of  Exodus  (xii :  40),  and 
the  statement  of  Stephen  (Acts  vii:  6),  the  sojourning  of  the 
children  of  Israel  in  Egypt,  and  their  bondage  there  contin- 
ued 400,  or  430  (so  Ex.  /.  c.)  years,  to  which  must  be  added 
the  200  years  between  the  covenant  with  Abraham  and 
Jacob's  descent  to  Egypt,  making  more  than  600  years  from 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  to  the  giving  of  the  Law.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Hebrew  Bible,  and  according  to  Stephen,  Paul's 
chronology  is  at  fault  by  about  200  years.  And  unfortu- 
nately we  are  precluded  from  falling  back  here  on  that  con- 
venient abstraction,  the  original  autograph,  by  the  unques- 
tionable  fact  that,  according  to  his  customary  rule.   Paul   is 


42  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

here  following  the  Septuagint,  which  has  added  certain  words 
to  the  Hebrew  text  in  Exodus  (/.  c.)  so  as  to  make  the  430 
years  include  the  sojourning  in  Canaan,  along  with  the  so- 
journing in  Egypt.  Now  as  a  question  of  criticism,  biblical 
and  historical,  I  can  not  help  believing  that  the  Hebrew  text 
and  Stephen  are  right  here,  and  that  the  Septuagint  and  Paul 
are  wrong.  What  am  I  to  do  ?  If  I  instruct  my  class  that 
Paul's  statement  is  infallibly  inspired,  I  put  Stephen  in  the 
wrong,  I  have  the  Old  Testament  passages  to  explain,  and  I 
have  serious  historical  difficulties  to  remove.^   Will  you  blame 


'  Of  these  difficulties  the  most  serious  and  the  only  one  to  which  I 
will  now  refer,  lies  in  the  extraordinary  multiplication  of  the  children 
of  Israel  in  Egypt.  The  facts  of  the  case,  as  given  in  Genesis  and 
Exodus,  are  the  following:  i.  The  number  of  the  Israelites  at  the 
beginning  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt  was  seventy  souls.  Gen.  xlvi:  27. 
— 2.  The  number  who  went  forth  out  of  Egypt  is  given  at  "six  hun- 
dred thousand  on  foot  that  were  men,  beside  children"  (Ex.  xii ;  37). 
This  would  give  about  three  millions  for  the  entire  number. — 3.  This 
remarkable  increase  had  taken  place  under  the  most  grievous  oppres- 
sion and  bondage.  Ex.  i :  7-14. — 4.  In  the  face  also  of  concerted 
methods  of  extermination.  Ex.  i :  15-22.  Many  of  the  negative  crit- 
ics of  the  Bible,  basing  their  deductions  on  the  traditional  chronology 
represented  by  the  Septuagint,  which  limits  the  sojourn  of  the  Israel- 
ites in  Egypt  to  230  years,  have  questioned  the  entire  narrative.  So 
among  others  Bp.  Colenso,  who  argued  the  case  very  skillfully  and 
forcibly  from  that  point  of  view.  Prof  W.  H.  Green,  D.D.,  of  Prince- 
ton, in  his  book:  "The  Pentateuch  vindicated  from  the  aspersions  of 
Bp.  Colenso,"  thus  disposes  of  the  argument.  Respecting  the  Sept. 
reading  of  Ex.  xii:  40,  he  says:  "The  gloss  thus  put  upon  this  pas- 
sage in  Exodus,  as  it  seemed  to  have  the  authority  of  an  inspired 
apostle  in  its  favor  in  Gal.  iii :  17,  and  as  the  genealogy  of  Moses,  Ex. 
vi :  16-20,  appeared  to  preclude  the  supposition  that  430  years  were 
spent  in  Egypt,  became  the  well  nigh  universal  view  of  the  case.  It 
still  has  its  advocates,  though  the  leading  Biblical  scholars  of  Europe  have 
abandoned  it.''''  On  the  passage  in  Galatians,  Dr.  Green  says:  "This 
language  of  the  apostle,  however,  does  not  appear  to  us  to  be  decisive 
of  the  point  at  issue.  The  interval  of  time  is  only  incidentally  men- 
tioned.     Precision  of  statement  regarding  it  was  of  no  consequence  to  his 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLAKSHli'    AND    INSl'IRAllON.  43 

me  if,  instead  of  putting  an  artificial  forced  construction  on 
such  a  passage  in  the  interests  of  an  a  priori  theory,  I  prefer  a 
straightforward,  manly,  sober,  reverent  view  of  the  difficulty, 
like  that  which  Prof.  Beet  has  taken  in  his  Commentary: 
"  The  above  discussion  warns  us  not  to  try  to  settle  (juestions 
of  Old  Testament  historical  criticism  by  casual  allusions  in  the 
New  Testament.  AH  such  attempts  are  unworthy  of  scien- 
tific Biblical  scholarship.  By  inweaving  his  words  to  man  in 
historic  fact,  God  appealed  to  the  ordinary  laws  of  human 
credibility.  These  laws  attest  with  absolute  certainty  the 
great  facts  of  Christianity.  And  upon  these  great  facts,  and 
upon  these  only,  rest  both  our  faith  in  the  Gospel  and  in  God, 
and  the  authority  of  the  Sacred  Book.  Consequently  .  .  . 
our  faith  does  not  require  the  absolute  accuracy  of  every  his- 
torical detail  in  the  Bible,  and  is  not  disturbed  by  any  error 
in  detail  which  may  be  detected  in  its  pages.  At  the  same 
time  our  study  of  the  Bible  reveals  there  an  historical  accu- 
racy which  will  make  us  very  slow  to  condemn  as  erroneous 
even  unimportant  statements  of  Holy  Scripture.  And  in  spite 
of  any  possible  errors  in  small  details  or  allusions,  the  Book 
itself  remains  to  us  as — in  a  unique  and  infinitely  glorious 
sense — a  literary  embodiment  of  the  Voice  and  Word  of 
God."  I  most  heartily  say  Amen  to  every  line  of  that  state- 
ment.    It  is  the  only  tenable  position  to  take. 


argument."  And  on  the  chronology  itself  Dr.  Green'  delivers  this 
judgment:  "The  evidence  is,  we  think,  conclusive  that  the  abode  in 
Egypt  lasted  ^^o  years.  This  is  the  statural  sefise  of  Ex.  xii :  40,  and 
none  would  ever  think  of  extracting  a  different  meaning  from  it,  but  for 
reasons  found  outside  of  the  verse  itself  .  .  .  The  verse  makes  no 
allusion  to  Canaan,  but  only  to  Egypt."  In  a  subsequent  chapter  he 
shows  how  a  term  of  430  years  in  Egypt  meets  all  the  requirements  of 
the  narrative  touching  the  multiplication,  of  the  nation,  etc.  His 
whole  argument  is  a  striking  illustration  of  the  fact  that  honest  criti- 
cism yields  in  the  end  the  best  apologetic  results.  See  pp.  Iijf, 
141  f.,  of  "The  Pentateuch  Vindicated." 


44  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

This  illustration  brings  up  another  point  of  importance  in 
Biblical  criticism.  I  refer  to  the  use  made  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment in  the  New.  Without  going  into  detail,  let  me  call  at- 
tention to  the  fact,  that  almost  every  possible  way  in  which 
an  Old  Testament  passage  can  be  cited,  is  adopted.^  As  a 
rule,  the  citations  follow  the  Septuagint,  sometimes  closely, 
sometimes  loosely.  Sometimes  the  Seventy  as  cited  is  an 
exact  translation  of  the  original.  Sometimes  it  is  a  free,  but 
faithful,  rendering,  giving  the  sense  rather  than  the  words. 
Sometimes  it  is  hardly  a  translation  at  all,  but  a  paraphrase. 
Sometimes  it  gives  a  sense  quite  different  from  the  original. 
In  making  the  citation,  the  New  Testament  writer  sometimes 
quotes  the  Septuagint  verbatim.  Sometimes  he  changes  a 
word  or  two.  Sometimes  the  change  brings  the  passage  into 
closer  conformity  to  the  original  Hebrew.  Sometimes  the 
change  introduces  a  variation  both  from  the  Hebrew  and  from 
the  Septuagint.  Sometimes  the  writer  gives  a  new  translation 
of  the  Hebrew,  apparently  his  own.  I  appeal  to  every  can- 
did student  of  these  facts,  whether  they  comport  with  the 
notion  of  a  rigorous  verbal  infallibility.  To  my  mind  they 
are  quite  conclusive  of  the  contrary.  Calvin  himself,  re- 
ferring to  the  deviation  of  the  Seventy,  as  cited  in  Heb.  xi : 
21  from  the  Massoretic  Hebrew  text,  says  of  the  Apostolic 
use  of  the  Old  Testament :  "The  Apostle  does  not  hesitate 
to  accommodate  to  his  own  purpose  (non  dubitat  suo  institute 
acconwdarc)  what  was  commonly  received.  He  wrote,  in- 
deed, to  the  Jews;  but  to  those  who,  being  dispersed  through 
various  countries,  had  exchanged  their  national  language  for 
Greek.  We  know  that  in  such  a  matter  the  Apostles  were 
not  very  scrupulous  {iion  adeo  ftiisse  scrupulosos) ,"  by  which 
of  course  Calvin  means  that  they  were  not  careful  about  exacti- 


See  D.  M.  Turpie's  The  Old  Testament  in  the  New,  p.  266  f. 


BIBLICAL    SCIIOLAKSHIP    AND    INSriKATlON. 


45 


tude  in  all  matters  of  detail.      "  In  the  thing  itself,"  he  add-. 
"  there  is  but  little  difference."  ' 

I  have  thus  far  sought  to  show  that  the  theory  of  an 
ipsissima  verba  infallibility  in  Scripture  fails  when  brought 
to  the  test  of  the  best  assured  conclusions  of  criticism. 
It  remains  to  take  a  brief  look  at  the  positive  side  of 
the  question.  For,  allow  me  to  say,  that  to  us,  even 
as  to  you,  nay  to  us  even  more  than  it  can  be  to  you, 
who   say   with    Drs.    Hodge    and    Warfield   that    "the   es- 

'  It  may  be  well  lo  add  here  that  rigid  in  some  respects  as  was  Cal- 
vin's dogma  of  inspiration  as  set  forth  in  his  Institutes,  though  by  no 
means  as  rigid  as  the  later  dogma,  his  attitude  became  very  much  freer 
when  brought  face  to  face  with  the  particular  problems  of  criticism. 
So  rationalistic,  indeed,  did  his  treatment  of  the  Old  Testament  seem 
to  the  more  orthodox  Lutherans  of  his  day,  that  they  charged  him 
with  Judaizing.  One  of  them  calls  him  Calvinus  Judaizans  (Aeg. 
Hunnius,  Vit.  1593).  Another  accuses  him  of  interpreting  the  passages 
about  the  Messiah  and  the  Trinity  in  the  sense  of  the  Jews  and  the 
Socinians  (see  reff.  in  Reuss,  History  of  the  N.  T.,  §  550).  To  the 
phrase,  Iva  tzlrjpudrj,  in  connection  with  O.  T  citations,  he  gave  so 
elastic  an  interpretation  that  this,  too,  was  denounced  as  rationalistic. 
(See  Tholuck  on  Calvin  as  an  Interpreter,  Bibl.  Repos.  ii,  p.  541  ff. ) 
He  recognizes  an  occasional  inaccuracy  in  the  text.  On  Mat.  xxvii  : 
9,  he  says :  "  The  passage  itself  plainly  shows  that  the  name  of 
Jeremiah  has  been  put  down  by  mistake  instead  of  Zechariah."  He 
is,  at  least,  not  anxious  to  trace  it  back  to  the  original  autograph. 
"  How  the  name  of  Jeremiah  crept  in,  he  says,  I  do  not  know,  nor  do 
I  give  myself  much  trouble  to  inquire  (nee  anxie  laboro)."  On  Luke 
xxiv:  36,  and  elsewhere,  he  recognizes  contradictions,  but  uniformly 
dismisses  them  as  of  no  importance,  leaving  as  they  do  the  substance 
of  the  narrative  unaffected.  He  doubts  the  Petrine  authorship  of  the 
Second  Epistle,  and  can  not  be  prevailed  upon  to  acknowledge  Paul 
as  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  {ego  ut  Pauliim  agnoscam 
auctorem  addtici  neqiteo).  "  Only  in  his  very  earliest  writings,"  says 
Reuss  {Hist,  of  the  N.  T.,  §335),  "does  he  follow  tradition."  He 
was,  in  fact,  a  pioneer  of  the  Higher  Criticism,  and  it  is  only  too  evi- 
dent that  if  the  question  of  confirming  his  election  to  one  of  our  Bibli- 
cal  chairs  were  to  come  before  us  to-day,  he  would  fail  of  getting  a 
unanimous  vote. 


46  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

sence  of  inspiration  was  superintendence,"  inspiration  has 
a  very  positive  side ;  is  a  massive,  all-controlling,  over- 
whelmingly predominant  fact,  throughout  the  very  warp  and 
woof  of  the  Bible  from  beginning  to  end.  Inspiration  is  not 
to  be  measured  by  the  trifles  which  have  passed  under  our  re- 
view. A  trifle,  to  be  sure,  may  be  a  fact ;  and  if  a  fact,  it  is 
a  sin  to  deny  it,  whether  small  as  an  atom  or  big  as  Jupiter. 
And  if  anywhere  we  are  to  bow  before  the  facts,  it  is  in  the 
sphere  of  Divine  truth.  It  is  not,  as  Prof.  Briggs  says,  a 
pleasant  task  to  point  out  errors  in  Scripture.  We  do  it  only 
as  the  interests  of  truth  require,  because  we  dare  not  handle 
the  word  of  God  deceitfully.  Nothing  is  worth  saving  that 
can  not  be  saved  honestly,  not  even  that  Book.  But  we  are 
at  an  infinite  remove  from  taking  these  as  the  measure  of  the 
Bible.  Cromwell  showed  his  manliness  in  ordering  the 
painter  to  put  in  his  portrait  the  wart  on  his  face ;  but  who 
would  dream  of  judging  Cromwell  by  his  wart  ?  What  are 
these  trifling  inaccuracies  in  Scripture  when  compared  with 
the  Burden  of  the  Book?  If  one  of  the  Gospel  records 
varies  from  another  in  respect  to  the  details  of  a  miracle, 
what  difference  does  it  make  if  the  Miracle  remains  ?  If  there 
are  minor  incongruities  in  the  narratives  of  Christ's  appear- 
ances after  his  resurrection,  is  not  the  Fact  of  his  resurrection 
made  all  the  more  certain  even  by  these  incongruities  ?  If 
Paul"  did — in  very  respectable  company,  too — make  a  mistake 
of  two  hundred  years  in  stating  his  argument  to  the  Galatians, 
what  has  that  to  do  with  the  argument  ?  Does  it  weaken  in 
the  slightest  the  sledge-hammer  blow  with  which  he  crushes 
Jewish  legalism  dead  forever?  If  Stephen  transposes  certain 
Old  Testament  incidents,  or  confuses  certain  names,  does 
that  affect  the  convicting  power  of  his  terrific  arraignment  of 
an  apostate  Israel  ?  Was  not  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  every  word  that  he  spoke,  even  when  least  accurate?^ 


'  It  is  one  of  the  pitiful  subterfuges  of  the  mechanical   theory  tliat 
Stephen  was  not,    or  may  not    have  been   inspired.      Luke,  forsooth,  \\\ 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  47 

Suppose  that  one  of  his  hearers  had  undertaken  to  reply  to 
him,  saying:  "You  have  said  that  Abraham  left  Haran 
after  the  death  of  his  father,  Terah ;  whereas,  if  you  study 
the  figures  in  Genesis,  you  will  find  that  Terah  must  have 
lived  fifty  years  or  more  in  Haran  after  Abraham  left.  You 
were  mistaken  also  in  saying  that  Abraham  bought  the 
sepulcher  of  the  sons  of  Hamor  in  Shechem.  If  you  look 
into  the  matter  a  little  more  closely,  you  will  find  that  that 
was  Jacob,  and  that  Abraham  bought  his  purchase  at  Hebron 
of  Ephron  the  Hittite."  But  would  that  have  silenced 
Stephen  ?  Such  a  criticism  on  such  a  speech  would  have 
been  like  flinging  a  feather  in  the  teeth  of  a  cyclone. 

God  has  not  been  afraid  to  commit  the  excellency  of  his 
treasure  to  earthen  vessels.  He  is  not  alarmed  lest  the  weak- 
ness of  the  vessel  should  be  a  damage  to  the  treasure.  He 
has  not  shrunk  from  risking  his  truth  on  the  liabilities  of  tradi- 
tions, translations,  transcriptions,  and  their  inevitable  accom- 
paniments of  fallibility.  He  has  not  been  concerned  lest  the 
popular  misconceptions  of  a  pre-Copernican  astronomy,  or  of 


his  account  of  the  external  circumstances  attending  the  discourse,  was 
inspired,  but  Stephen  not !  And  this  in  face  of  all  that  the  inspired 
Luke  says  about  Stephen,  that  he  was  "full  of  grace  and  power" 
(Ac.  vi:  8) ;  that  his  opponents  "  were  not  able  to  withstand  the  wis- 
dom and  the  Spirit  by  which  he  spake "  (vi :  10):  that  during  this 
same  address,  "  all  that  sat  in  the  council,  fastening  their  eyes  on 
him,  saw  his  face  as  it  had  been  the  face  of  an  angel  "  (vi:  15);  that 
his  unbelieving  hearers  were  cut  to  the  heart,  and  they  gnashed  on 
him  with  their  teeth"  (vii:  54);  that  at  the  close,  Stephen  himself, 
"being  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  looked  up  steadfastly  into  heaven  and 
saw  the  glory  of  God,  and  Jesus  standing  on  the  right  hand  of  God  " 
(vii  :  55  f).  This  man's  inspiration,  an  open  question  at  the  least,  to 
be  denied  if  the  exigencies  of  an  infinitesimal  literalistic  inspiration 
requires  it;  but  the  words  of  the  annalist,  who  thus  introduces  the  dis- 
course:  "And  the  high  priest  said,  Are  these  things  so?  And  he 
said,"  potent  with  the  essence  itself  of  inspiration— supervision  !  Is 
not  such  a  theory  self-condemaed  ? 
4 


48  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

a  pre-Lyellian  geology,  or  of  a  pre-Linncean  botany  should 
compromise  his  Revelation  of  Himself.  I  thank  God  that  it 
is  so.  I  rejoice  that  Divine  as  is  the  Book,  Divine  as  no  other 
book  is,  it  is  still  so  thoroughly  human,  so  beautifully  threaded 
with  the  fiber  of  human  nerve,  thought,  and  sensibility,  so 
sweetly  veined  with  the  crimsoned  channels  of  the  heart's 
blood,  life,  and  experience.  I  rejoice  that,  supernatural  as  it 
is,  supernatural  as  no  other  book  is,  it  is  still  so  thoroughly 
natural,  that  its  literary  life  and  growth  blend  so  lovingly 
and  harmoniously  with  the  currents  and  processes  of  the 
world's  divinely  appointed  life  and  growth.  I  rejoice  that 
God  when  he  speaks  in  the  language  of  earth  and  by  the 
mouth  of  his  servants  comes  so  low  down  that  he  is  not 
ashamed  to  use  bad  grammar,  is  not  afraid  of  a  barbarism 
or  a  solecism,  does  not  shrink  from  an  archaism,  or  an 
anachronism,  does  not  disdain  an  antediluvian  setting  for 
the  doctrine  of  the  Creation  or  the  Fall,  or  what  a  scientist 
might  derisively  call  a  Kindergarten  formula  for  the  truth  of 
Providence,  or  the  Judgment.  He  does  not  hang  eternal 
issues  on  details  that  are  relatively  insignificant.  He  has  not 
so  poised  the  Rock  of  Ages  that  the  Higher  or  Lower  Crit- 
icism, with  pick-ax  or  crow-bar,  digging  out  a  chronological 
inaccuracy  here,  or  prying  off  a  historical  contradiction  there, 
is  going  to  upset  it.  The  critic  may  be  all  right,  the  crow- 
bar may  be  all  right,  but  the  Rock  of  Ages  is  all  right,  too, 
and  it  will  stand  fast  forever.  Do  not,  I  beseech  you,  charge 
upon  God  the  priggish  precision  which  makes  as  much  of  a 
mole-hill  as  of  a  mountain.  God  does  not  care  to  be  hon- 
ored in  that  way.  Do  not  degrade  him  by  requiring  that 
he  should  poise  before  his  earthly  children  as  an  intolerant, 
if  not  intolerable.  Pedant,  who  insists  on  his  fs  and  q's  with 
no  less  vigor  and  pertinacity  than  on  his  godlike  SHEMA — 
"Hear,  O  Israel!"  or  on  his  everlasting  AMEN — "Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you  !" 

But  what  of  the  positive  bearing  of  the  conclusions  of  crit- 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRAIION. 


49 


icism  on  our  conception  of  inspiration  ?  Take  e.  g.  its  con- 
clusions in  respect  to  the  structure  and  contents  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels.  What  do  they  teach  us  as  to  the  fact  of 
inspiration  ?  They  teach  us  that  it  is  a  much  larger  fact  than 
the  scholastic  notion  which  resolves  it  into  mere  supervision. 
Its  scope  is  much  wider.  It  is  the  note  of  a  supernatural 
age ;  an  age  in  which  supernatural  forces  were  at  work  on  an 
extensive  scale;  in  which  supernatural  facts  had  been  wit- 
nessed by  multitudes,  and  had  stamped  their  impressions  on 
thousands  of  living  souls;  an  age  when  supernatural  charis- 
mata abounded  in  the  church ;  an  age  of  miracles,  of  super- 
natural healings,  of  supernatural  tongues.  It  was  pre-emi- 
nently an  age  of  prophetic  inspiration,  in  which  the  Old  Tes- 
tament predictions  were  fulfilled:  "And  it  shall  be  in  the  last 
days,  saith  God,  I  will  pour  forth  of  my  spirit  upon  all  flesh ; 
And  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,  And  your 
young  men  shall  see  visions,  And  your  old  men  shall  dream 
dreams ;  Yea,  and  on  my  servants  and  on  my  handmaidens 
in  those  days  will  I  pour  forth  of  my  Spirit ;  And  they  shall 
prophesy."^  It  was  an  age  in  which  there  was  an  order  of 
prophets  in  the  church  and  a  gift  of  prophesying  in  the 
churches.  It  was  an  age  when  Luke  could  say  that 
'''■  mariy  have  taken  in  hand  to  draw  up  a  narrative  concerning 
these  matters  which  have  been  fulfilled  [or  fully  established] 
among  us;"  an  age  which  furnished  Luke  with  that  inimitable 
story  of  the  Infancy,  written  nobody  knows  by  whom,  per- 
haps, as  Alford  suggests,  by  Mary,  the  mother  of  our  Lord, 
but  as  plenarily  inspired,  before  Luke  ever  got  hold  of  it,  as 
any  thing  that  Peter  or  John  ever  wrote;  an  age  which  fur- 
nished the  fragment  at  the  end  of  Mark,  written  nobody 
knows  by  whom,  but  attesting  itself  to  the  consciousness  of 
the  Church  to-day  as  throughout  the  centuries  as  the  inspired 


Acts,  ii :  14  f. 


50  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

Word  of  God,  as  truly  and  as  fully  such  as  all  of  Mark  ;  *  an 
age  which  furnished  the  pericope  of  the  woman  taken  in 
adultery,  written  nobody  knows  by  whom,  but  as  full  of  Jesus 
as  the  diamond  is  full  of  the  sun ; "  an  age  of  inspired 
Christian  hymns,  some  of  which  have  found  their  way  into 
the  record,  sung  nobody  knows  by  whom,  but  sweet  and 
grand  as  the  apocalyptic  melodies  of  heaven's  own  Alleluias; ' 
an  age  when,  as  the  appendix  to  John's  Gospel  declares,  if 
all  the  facts  known  respecting  Christ  were  written,  the  world 
itself  would  not  contain  the  books  that  should  be  written ;  an 
age  when  we  know  not  how  many  inspired  records  and  epis- 
tles were  written  and  lost ;  *  an  age  which  built  up  mighty 
Christian  traditions,  not  like  the  dead,  dry  petrifactions  of 
Judaism,  but  fresh,  living,  burning  traditions,  to  which  the 
Apostles  could  appeal  as  instinct  with  vital  energy  and  au- 
thority.^ Think  you  that  in  such  an  age  there  would  be  any 
lack  of  inspiration  for  building  up  the  Gospel  record  ?  Look  at 
the  quantity  and  the  quality  of  the  inspiration  which  this  view 
gives  you;  not  the  pedantic,  pedagogical  supervision  of  "jots 
and  tittles,"  but  the  grand,  living  expression  of  "  the  powers  of 
the  World  to  Come;"  not  an  occasional  spurt  or  spasm,  but  a 
great  dynamic,  ecumenical  fact;  not  the  flow  of  a  few  Arte- 
sian wells,  but  a  mighty  tide,  surging  out  of  the  great  super- 


'  See  Revised  Version  at  Mark,  xvi :  9  f. 

*  See  Revised  Version  at  John,  vii :  53-viii:  11. 

'  See  I  Cor.  xiv:  26 ;  Col.  iii :  16  ;  Eph.  v  :  19.  See  exx  in  the  songs 
of  Mary,  Zacharias,  and  Simeon  (Lk.  i:  46  f.,  67  f.;  ii :  29  f.  in  Revised 
Version  and  Westcott  and  HortJ;  also,  Eph.  v  :  14 ;  I  Tim.  iii:  16,  in 
Westcott  and  Hort.  Cf.  Acts,  iv  :  24  f.  See  Winer's  Grammar  of  the 
N.  T.  Diction,  §  68,  3,  4. 

*  See  I  Cor.  v :  9 ;  2  Cor.  x  :  10 ;  xi :  28  ;  2  Thes.  ii :  15;  iii :  17;  Phil, 
iii:  18;  (Col.  iv :  16?  more  probably  the  extant  Ep.  to  the  Ephesians); 
3  John,  in:  9.     See  Salmon's  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  Lecture  XX. 

5  See  Luke,  i :  2  ;  i  Cor.  xi :  2,  23  ;  2  Thes.  ii :  15  ;  iii :  6  ;  2  Tim.  i : 
13 ;  2  Peter,  ii :  21  ;  iii :  2  ;  Jude,  3,  17. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  51 

natural  deep.  What  a  broad,  impregnal)le  base  you  have 
here  for  the  Gospel  record !  What  a  great  cloud  of  witnesbcs! 
What  palpable  energy  and  vitality  of  conviction  palpitating 
through  every  line  of  the  manifold  testimony !  What  over- 
whelming, convincing  power  in  the  consentaneous  strength 
of  the  Gospel  witness  to  its  own  transcendent  facts,  when  this 
witness  is  found  to  rest  on  no  artificial  support,  is  secured  by 
no  mechanical  uniformity,  but  comes  to  us  through  what 
Prof.  Beet  calls  "the  ordinary  laws  of  human  credibility,"' 
bearing  these  marks  of  honesty,  independence,  frankness, 
individuality,  spontaneity,  internal  verisimilitude,  which  every- 
where and  always  guarantee  the  truth  of  human  testimony ! 
Is  it  not  the  claim  and  glory  of  the  Gospel  Story  that  it 
combines  the  dignity  and  authority  of  a  heavenly  recital  with 
the  piquant  frankness,  the  homelike  naivete  of  the  conversa- 
tional fireside  tale,  here  and  there,  it  may  be,  contradicting 
itself  in  small  matters,  breaking  out  into  artless  variations 
and  impulsive  inconsistences,  but  all  the  more  surely  therL4)y 
winning  its  way  to  the  faith  and  love  of  the  heart  ? 

The  most  important  question  of  all  still  remains  to  be  con- 
sidered. What  is  inspiration — not  in  itself,  but  as  a  fact,  as 
a  characteristic  of  the  Bible  ?  In  giving  my  answer  to  this 
question,  I  know  no  better  course  to  take  than  to  follow  the 
line  of  thought  in  the  First  Chapter  of  our  Confession  of 
Faith,  perhaps  the  noblest  Chapter  in  that  immortal  docu- 
ment. Let  me  ask  your  attention  to  what  is  most  essential  in 
that  magnificent  statement  of  the  truth  respecting  Scripture. 
"Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  creation  and 
providence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wisdom,  and 
power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  ine.xcusable  ;  yet  they  are  not 
sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  his  .will, 
which  is  necessary  unto  salvation."  Let  us  ponder  that  state- 
ment a  moment.  Why  was  Scripture  given  ?  The  answer 
of  our  Confession  is:  Because  "the  light  of  nature  was  not 
sufficient."      Sufficient    for   what?       "To   give    [a   certain] 


52  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

knowledge."  Knowledge  of  what  ?  Of  botany  ?  chemistry? 
geography  ?  By  no  means.  The  light  of  nature  is  sufificient 
for  that.  It  is  not  sufficient  however  ^^ for  ihe  knowledge  ov 
God  "—that  Great  Infinite  Being  with  whom  as  spiritual  im- 
mortal beings  we  have  to  do;  ''and  of  his  will" — that  ex- 
pression of  God's  eternal  thoughts  and  purpose  which  most 
essentially  concerns  our  spiritual  welfare  and  our  eternal  des- 
tiny; and  still  more  explicitly,  "not  sufficient  for  thai  knowl- 
edge of  God  which  is  necessary  " — for  what  ?  For  science  ? 
for  art?  for  civilization?  necessary  to  fill  a  cyclopaedia?  to 
equip  a  college  graduate  ? — nay,  ' '  but  which  is  necessary  unto 
SALVATION."  What  is  all  secular  knowledge  compared  with 
"  that  knowledge  of  God  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation?  " 
That  was  the  great  need  of  the  world ;  it  was  to  supply  that 
need  that  when  the  light  of  nature  failed  man,  God  inter- 
posed. '■'■Therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times, ^  and 
in  divers  manners  TO  REVEAL  HIMSELF;"  mark  that! 
Not  in  the  first  instance  to  give  a  book,  not  to  transmit  a  rev- 
elation about  Himself,  not  to  write,  or  cause  to  be  written,  a 
series  of  definitions,  logical  categories,  abstract  propositions 
relating  to  his  person,  his  nature,  his  attributes;  but  "to  r^- 
z'^«/ Himself" — actually,  factually,  in  living  deed,  as  well  as 
by  the  living  word ;  by  Theophanies,  by  Covenants,  by  Dis- 
pensations; by  orders,  institutions,  structures,  legislative,  ad- 
ministrative, civil,  religious;  by  sacrifices  and  sacraments, 
Urim  and  Thummim,  blood  and  Shekinah;  by  mediations  of 
grace  and  life  most  various,  touching,  and  sublime,  didactic, 
devotional,  priesdy,  prophetic;  by  dream,  vision,  psalm, 
svmbol,  type,  miracle — a  golden  chain  of  divine  manifesta- 
tions and  interpositions  reaching  down  through  the  centuries; 
every  new  link  charged  with  more  of  God — God  in  it  all — 
God  Himself — God  in  person ;  the  Power  of  God,  the  Heart 
of  God,  the  Life  of  God  in  every  thing ;  and  all  for  salva- 


'  Rev.  Version,  "by  divers  portions. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  53 

TiON  1  Emphasize  that  again !  Revelation  and  Redemption — 
twin  divinities,  advancing  together,  side  by  side,  step  by  step, 
every  step  ablaze  with  Deity !  the  Divine  Processes  widening 
with  the  suns,  more,  and  more,  and  ever  more  of  God  in 
every  thing  until  at  last  the  climax  is  reached — the  Word  be- 
comes flesh;  the  Son  of  God  is  born  on  earth,  lives — suffers — 
dies — rises  again — ascends  to  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty 
on  high,  to  reign  King  of  Kings,  and  Lord  of  Lords,  God 
blessed  forever.     Amen ! 

Here  in  these  great  Facts,  these  great  historic  processes, 
these  theophanies  of  glory,  these  miracles  of  power  and  love, 
these  supernatural  interventions  of  redeeming  Grace,  we  have 
God  revealing  Himself.  That  precisely,  as  our  Confession 
puts  it,  is  the  primal  fact.  Here  you  have  the  material  of  the 
Word  of  God,  the  stuff  of  inspiration,  the  substance  of  the 
Gospel.  Paul's  definition  of  the  Gospel  is  just  that:  "The 
Power  of  God  unto  Salvation."  Not  a  thing  of  power,  not 
a  mighty  system,  not  a  tremendous  engine,  but  Dunamis, 
Power,  God's  Power,  Personal  Omnipotence,  at  work  as 
Omnipotence,  saving  the  world.  "  My  Father  worketh  hith- 
erto, and  I  work.'"  That  is  Redemption.  That  is  Revela- 
tion for  Redemption.  The  life  of  the  Revelation  is  there, 
the  power  of  the  Revelation  is  there,  in  that  Divine  Working; 
not  in  words,  not  in  definitions,  not  in  abstract  statements — 
how  much  of  God  can  you  put  into  words?  How  much  of 
the  Eternal  can  you  pack  into  a  definition  ?  How  much  of 
the  Infinite  can  you  squeeze  into  a  dogma  ? — No,  not  in  these, 
but  in  those  stupendous  supernatural  forthputtings  of  God 
Himself,  which  blazon  their  way  all  along  from  Eden  to 
Golgotha. 

So  much  for  the  first  step — the  redemptive  revelation  of 
Himself  by  God.  "It  pleased  the  Lord,"  first  of  all,  thus 
"to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  his  will  unto  his  Church." 
What  next?  "And  aftemiard,"  mark  the  order,  the  depend- 
ence, and  the  purpose,  "  and  afterward  for  the  better  preserv- 


54  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

ing  and  propagating  of  the  truth,  and  for  the  more  sure  es- 
tablishment and  comfort  of  the  Church  against  the  corruption 
of  the  flesh,  and  the  maUce  of  Satan,  and  of  the  world,  to 
commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing,  which  maketh  the  holy 
scripture  to  be  most  necessary ;  those  former  ways  of  God's 
revealing  his  will  unto  his  people  being  now  ceased."  The 
Bible  is  thus  the  written  record  of  the  revelation.  What, 
then,  is  the  object  of  the  record  ?  Generically  and  primarily 
the  object  of  the  record  is  the  same  with  the  object  of 
the  revelation,  to  wit:  Salvation.  Specifically  the  record 
is  given  for  three  purposes  subordinate  to  the  great 
generic  purpose  :  (i)  To  interpret  the  revelation,  or,  in  the 
language  of  the  Confession,  "to  declare  God's  will"  in  the 
revelation.  For  man,  alas!  is  ignorant,  blinded,  besotted 
by  sin,  and  needs  to  have  this  wondrous  Divine  Drama  of 
Redemption  explained.  (2)  To  perpetuate  the  revelation: 
"those  former  ways  of  God's  revealing  his  will  having  now 
ceased."  (3)  To  apply  the  revelation ;  or  to  make  it  effectual 
against  the  trinity  of  evil,  the  world,  the  flesh,  and  Satan. 

What  now  is  the  function  of  inspiration?  In  a  word,  it  is 
to  mediate  the  revelation ;  to  interpret,  to  record,  to  apply 
it;  to  put  us,  to  put  all  generations,  under  the  immediate 
power  of  those  Divine  Realities ;  so  far  as  possible  to  bring 
us  face  to  face  with  this  incomparable  drama  of  Power  and 
Love  Divine,  face  to  face  7vith  God  revealing  Himself.  All 
through  the  ages  the  Spirit  of  God  was  teaching  one  and 
another  to  understand,  to  interpret,  to  record,  to  apply  that 
wondrous  process.  There,  then,  you  have  the  revela- 
tion; here  the  inspiration.  There  the  supernatural  history; 
here  the  supernatural  record.  There  the  fact ;  here  the  story. 
There  Sinai;  here  Exodus.  There  Bethlehem,  Galilee,  Cal- 
vary, Olivet;  here  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  John.  There 
Pentecost ;  here  the  Acts.  And  as  the  Revelation  was 
building,  so  the  Book  was  building.  As  that  became  high 
and    broad,   this  became  rich   and    full.     And  so  the  Book 


HIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 


55 


became  the  double  of  the  deed.  By  the  divine  correlation 
of  energy,  the  life  and  power  of  the  one  became  the  life  and 
power  of  the  other.  The  Facts  burn  in  the  Words.  The 
living  History  throbs  in  the  living  Record.  And  so  to-day, 
and  throughout  all  time,  in  all  that  makes  the  Bible  the 
power  of  God  unto  salvation,  it  is  the  Voice  of  God,  the 
Word  of  God,  the  supreme,  the  only,  the  infallible  au- 
thority.' 

That  is  what  the  Bible  teaches  concerning  itself  It  is  part 
of  the  supernatural,  divine  process  of  saving  a  lost  world,  of 
rehabilitating  a  ruined  humanity.  Inspiration  is  the  formal 
factor  in  that  process,  as  Revelation  is  the  material  factor. 
Thus  regarded  I  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  Bible  is 
inspired  wholly,  inspired  through  and  through.  The  men  are 
inspired,  as  Prof.  Stowe  said.  The  thoughts  are  inspired,  as 
Prof.  Briggs  says.  The  words  are  inspired,  as  Prof  Hodge 
has  said.  These  are  "  the  sacred  writings  which  are  able  to 
make  wise  unto  salvation,  through  faith  which  is  in  Jesus 
Christ.'^  "  Every  scripture  is  inspired  of  God,  and  profitable 
for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  discipline  which 
is  in  righteousness;  that  the  man  of  God  maybe  complete, 
furnished  completely  unto  every  good  work."  That  is  what 
inspiration  is  for,  for  training  and  completing  in  the  divine 
life.  How  can  error  in  chronology,  or  physical  science,  affect 
that  process?  "The  words  that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are 
spirit,  and  are  life."     Yes!  in  these  inspired  words  there  is  a 


*  I  take  pleasure  in  referring  to  the  admirable  statement  of  this  his- 
toric and  literary  relation  of  Revelation  and  Inspiration  in  Drs.  Hodge 
and  Warfield's  Article  on  Inspiration  in  the  Presbyterian  Review,  Vol. 
II.  For  more  complete  and  systematic  discussion  of  the  subject,  see 
Dr.  G.  P.  Fisher's  Nature  and  Object  of  Reiielation  (Scribner :  N. 
York);  Dr.  A.  B.  Bruce:  The  Chief  End  of  Rr.'elation  (Hodder  & 
Stoughton)  ;  Dr.  G.  T.  Ladd  :  The  Doctrine  of  Sacred  Scripture,  and 
What  is  the  Bible  (C.  Scribner's  Sons,  N.  Y.)  ;  Dr.  W.  Sanday:  Tht 
Oraxles  ^  6></ (Longmans,  Green  &Co.). 


56  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

divine  pneumatic  power  such  as  no  other  words  have.  They 
are  Spirit-words,  Life- words.  "Which  things  we  teach,  not 
in  words  that  man's  wisdom  teacheth,  but  which  the  Spirit 
teacheth."  What  things  ?  Read  the  context.  ''Whatever 
things  God  prepared  for  them  that  love  him."  "The  deep 
things  of  God."  "The  things  that  were  freely  [graciously] 
given  to  us  of  God."  These  are  the  things  about  which  In- 
spiration concerns  itself.  God's  things,  God's  deepest  things, 
God's  best  things,  the  things  which  have  the  most,  the  best, 
the  deepest  of  God  in  them.  ^^ These  things,"  says  the  Apos- 
tle of  God  in  them,  "we  teach  in  words  which  the  Spirit  of 
God  teacheth."  Most  assuredly!  Who  can  doubt  it?  I 
believe  in  that  declaration  of  Paul's  with  all  my  heart.  I 
could  not  help  believing  it  if  Paul  had  never  said  it.  As  I 
read  what  the  Bible  says  about  God,  about  Christ,  about  the 
Spirit,  about  man,  sin,  salvation,  about  holiness,  duty,  life, 
death,  eternity,  I  feel  to  the  depths  of  my  being  that  the 
very  words  thrill  with  divinity ;  they  glow  with  the  ardors  of 
the  heaven  above  me ;  they  are  instinct  with  the  power  of  an 
endless  life;  the  majesty  of  eternity  is  in  their  rhythm;  deep 
calleth  unto  deep  in  the  thunders  of  their  diapason ;  the  pathos 
of  the  blessed  Comforter  is  in  their  stillest  smallest  voice ;  the 
very  balm  of  Paradise  is  shed  upon  them ;  even  upon  their 
anomalies  rests  the  glory  of  the  Shekinah ;  as  they  pass  before 
my  eye  they  are  radiant  with  the  One  Altogether  Lovely ;  as 
they  echo  in  my  heart-strings  they  are  vocal  with  God. 

It  is  most  strange  to  me  that  our  theologies  have  not  before 
now  found  the  secret  of  inspiration  in  that  transcendent  pas- 
sage of  Paul  from  which  I  have  just  cited  a  few  lines;  the 
clearest,  the  fullest,  the  profoundest  treatment  of  the  subject 
that  has  ever  been  given.  Let  me  give  the  whole  passage 
(i  Cor.  ii:  6-16):  "  Howbeit  we  speak  wisdom  among  them 
that  are  fully  grown :  yet  a  wisdom  not  of  this  world,  nor  of 
the  rulers  of  this  world,  who  are  coming  to  nought :  but  we 
speak  God's  wisdom  in  a  mystery,  even  the  wisdom  that  hath 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIKAIION. 


57 


been  hidden,  which  God  foreordained  before  the  worlds  unto 
our  glory :  which  none  of  the  rulers  of  this  world  hath  known ; 
for  had  they  known  it,  they  would  not  have  crucified  the  Lurd 
of  glory :  but  as  it  is  written :  things  which  eye  saw  not,  and 
ear  heard  not,  and  which  entered  not  into  the  heart  of  man, 
whatsoever  things  God  prepared  for  them  that  love  him. 
But  unto  us  God  revealed  them  through  the  Spirit :  for  the 
Spirit  searcheth  all  things,  yea,  the  deep  things  of  God.  For 
who  among  men  knoweth  the  things  of  a  man,  save  the  spirit 
of  the  man,  which  is  in  him?  even  so  the  things  of  God  none 
knoweth,  save  the  Spirit  of  God.  But  we  received  not  the 
spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  spirit  which  is  from  God;  that  we 
might  know  the  things  that  were  freely  given  to  us  of  God. 
Which  things  also  we  speak,  not  in  words  which  man's  wis- 
dom teacheth,  but  which  the  Spirit  teacheth;  combining  spir- 
itual things  with  spiritual  words  [or,  mg. — interpreting  spirit- 
ual things  to  spiritual  men].  Now  the  natural  [or:  unspiritual, 
Gr.  psychical]  man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of 
God :  for  they  are  foolishness  unto  him ;  and  he  can  not  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  judged  [or,  e.xamined].  But 
he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  [or,  e.xamineth]  all  things,  and  he 
himself  is  judged  [or,  examined]  of  no  man.  For  who  hath 
known  the  mind  of  the  Lord,  that  he  should  instruct  him  ? 
But  we  have  the  mind  of  Christ." 

That  is  inspiration.  How  then  shall  we  characterize  it? 
"Verbal"  inspiration?  "  Supervisional?"  "Official?"  "Ple- 
nary?" "Dynamic?"  Why  not  take  Paul's  word  at  once, 
which  sums  up  what  is  most  real  in  all  these  designations  ? 
"Pneumatic  Inspiration!"  There  you  have  it  all.  There 
you  have  not  only  Paul's  word,  but  Christ's.  "The  words 
that  I  have  spoken  unto  you  are  Pneuma."  Make  that  your 
watchword,  and  you  can  hold  the  fort  against  all  comers. 

Fneutnatic  Inspiration  :  what  does  it  mean  ? 

I.  The  Spirit  of  God  is  the  primary,  the  vital,  the  essen- 
tial factor. 


58  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

2.  The  Spirit  of  man  is  the  coefficient;  that  in  man  which  is 
the  organ  of  God,  and  of  all  Divine  Reality. 

3.  The  contents  of  inspiration  are /«^2^;««//(r  r^«////(?j.  And 
what  does  the  Apostle  say  of  these?  i.  They  have  their 
foundations  in  the  depths  of  the  Godhead.  They  are  "the 
deep  things  of  God."  ii.  They  are  above  and  beyond  all 
secular  science.  "Not  of  this  world  [or,  age:  aicov^  saecu- 
liwt\,  iii.  They  are  the  embodiment  of  a  Divine  Philosophy. 
*'  We  speak  God's  Wisdom."  iv.  They  are  attained  through 
a  divine  initiation.  "  In  a  mystery."  v.  They  date  from  the 
past  eternity.  "Foreordained  before  the  worlds."  vi.  They 
fill  the  future  eternity.  "  Prepared  for  them  that  love  him." 
vii.  They  are  supra-sensual.  "Eye  saw  not,  ear  heard  not." 
viii.  They  are  supra-psychical.  "The  natural  [psychical]  man 
receiveth  them  not."  ix.  They  are  supra-rational.  "Which 
entered  not  into  the  heart  of  man."  x.  They  are  the  pecu- 
liar province  of  the  Spirit,  who  "explores  the  depths  of  God." 
"None  knoweth  them  save  the  Spirit  of  God."  xi.  They  are 
freighted  with  Divine  Grace.  "Freely  given  to  us  of  God." 
xii.  They  culminate  in  spiritual  perfection.  "Unto  our 
glory." 

4.  The  processes  by  which  they  are  apprehended  are  pneu- 
matic.     "They  are  spiritually  judged." 

5_.  The  utterances,  by  which  they  are  expressed,  are  pneu- 
matic, theopneustic.  "In  words  which  the  Spirit  teacheth." 
"Combining  spiritualities  with  spiritualities." 

6.  And  to  crown  all  this  all-pervading,  all-assimilating 
Pneuma  is  the  Mind  of  the  Lord.  "We  have  the  mind  of 
Christ." 

Pneumatic  inspiration !  Is  it  not  just  that  ?  Do  you  ask 
for  characteristics  of  inspiration  ?  There  they  are.  Tests  of 
inspiration  ?  What  more  could  you  wish  for  ?  Safeguards 
of  inspiration  ?  Are  these  not  enough  ?  If  these  will  not 
guarantee  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible,  what  will  ?  Accord- 
ing to  our  Confession,  the  inspiration  of  Scripture  is  a  self- 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AN'I)    INSPIRAllON. 


59 


witnessing  fact.  '*We  maybe  moved  and  induced  by  the 
testimony  of  the  Church  to  a  high  and  revered  esteem  for 
the  holy  Scripture;  and  the  heavenhness  of  the  matter,  the 
efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the  consent 
of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  (which  is  to  give  all 
glory  to  God),  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of 
man's  salvation,  the  many  other  incomparable  excellencies, 
and  the  entire  perfection  thereof,  are  arguments  whereby  it 
doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God ;  yet, 
notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  in- 
fallible truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the  inward 
work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness,  by  and  with  the 
word,  in  our  hearts."  "The  Supreme  Judge,  ...  in 
whose  sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  be  no  other  but  the  Holy 
Spirit,  speaking  in  the  Scriptures."'  Does  not  that  which  is 
of  the  Spirit  evidence  itself?  With  this  pneumatic  concep- 
tion of  the  Book,  can  we  be  in  doubt  about  the  inspiration, 
about  the  quality,  contents,  scope,  purpose  of  the  inspiration  ? 
Can  we  have  any  trouble  about  verifying  it?  The  Bible  is  a 
pneumatic  Book.  The  groundwork,  the  substance,  all  that 
makes  the  Book  what  it  is,  is  pneumatic*  The  warp  and 
woof  of  it  IS  ptieufna.  Its  fringes  run  off,  as  was  inevitable, 
into  the  secular,  the  material,  the  psychic.  Can  we  not,  as 
persons  of  common  intelligence  even,  much  more  with  the 
internal  witness  of  the  Spirit  to  aid  us,  discriminate  between 
the  fringe  and  the  warp  and  woof?  Do  not  the  "spirit- 
ualities" and  the  "heavenlinesses  "  of  Scripture  distinguish 
themselves  from  all  that  is  lower,  as  the  steady  shining  of  the 
everlasting  stars  from  the  fitful  gleaming  of  earth's  fire-flies? 


1  The  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I,  Sees.  V,  X.  Comi)are  The 
Larger  Catechism,  Qii.  2,  3,  4,  and  answers. 

»  See  The  Larger  Catechism,  Qu.  5  (The  Shorter  Catechism,  Qu.  3) 
and  answer,  "^m.  What  do  the  Scriptures  principally  teach  ?  Ans. 
The  Scriptures  principally  teach  what  man  is  to  believe  concerning  God, 
and  what  duty  God  requires  of  man." 


6o  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

Even  if  the  task  of  discriminating  were  immeasurably  harder 
than  it  is,  we  should  not  complain.  God  lays  on  us  in  many 
matters,  in  matters,  too,  of  great  practical  moment,  the  re- 
sponsibility of  separating  the  things  that  differ.  "Why  even 
of  yourselves  judge  ye  not  what  is  right  ?  "  This  responsi- 
bihty  is  a  part  of  life's  discipline.  It  is  not  God's  way  to  do 
all  our  thinking  for  us.  His  training  is  not  a  process  of 
cram. 

Let  me  ask  your  attention  to  these  weighty  words  of  Mr. 
Gladstone:  "No  doubt  there  will  be  those  who  will  resent 
any  association  between  the  idea  of  a  Divine  Revelation  and 
the  possibility  of  even  the  smallest  intrusion  of  error  in  the 
vehicle.  But  ought  they  not  to  bear  in  mind  that  we  are 
bound  by  the  rule  of  reason  to  look  for  the  same  methods  of 
procedure  in  this  great  matter  of  a  special  provision  of  Divine 
knowledge  for  our  needs  as  in  the  other  parts  of  the  manifold 
dispensation  under  which  Providence  has  placed  us  ?  Now, 
that  method  or  principle  is  one  of  sufficiency,  not  perfection, 
of  sufficiency  for  the  attainment  of  practical  ends,  not  of 
conformity  to  ideal  standards.  Bp.  Butler,  I  think,  would 
wisely  tell  us  that  we  are  not  the  judges,  and  that  we  are 
quite  unfit  to  be  the  judges,  what  may  be  the  proper  amount, 
and  the  just  condition  of  any  of  the  aids  to  be  afforded  us  in 
passing  through  the  discipline  of  life.  I  will  only  remark 
that"this  default  of  ideal  perfection,  this  use  of  a  twilight  in- 
stead of  a  noonday  blaze,  may  be  adapted  to  our  weakness, 
and  may  be  among  the  appointed  means  of  exercising  our 
faith.  But  what  belongs  to  the  present  occasion  is  to  point 
out  that  if  probability  and  not  demonstration  marks  the 
divine  guidance  of  our  paths  in  life  as  a  whole,  we  are  not 
entitled  to  require  that  when  the  Almighty  in  his  mercy 
makes  a  special  addition  by  revelation  to  what  he  has  already 
given  to  us  of  knowledge  in  Nature  and  in  Providence,  that 
special  gift  should  be  unlike  his  other  gifts,  and  should  have 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  6l 

all  its  lines  and  limits  drawn  out  with    mathematical    pre- 


cision. 


That  is,  the  only  rational,  the  only  philosophic,  the  only 
Scriptural  ground  to  take.  It  is  the  ground  of  our  Con- 
fession. The  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  pneumatic,  not 
psychic,  not  secular.  The  infallibility  of  the  Bible  is  pneu- 
matic, not  psychic,  not  secular.  It  is  the  infallibility  of  prac- 
tical sufficiency,  not  the  infallibility  of  absolute  ideality.  It 
is  an  "infaUible  rule,"  standard  measure.  What  does  that 
mean  ?  I  have  a  yard-stick,  a  three-foot  rule.  As  such  it  is 
perfect,  all  sufficient.  If  I  make  a  mistake  in  measuring 
yards  or  feet  with  it,  it  will  be  altogether  my  own  fault.  .Vnd 
yet,  perhaps,  it  is  notched,  it  is  cracked,  some  of  the  inch 
lines  are  blurred ;  one  or  two  may  possibly  be  slightly  inexact. 
If  I  were  to  apply  the  microscope  to  it,  I  should  no  doubt 
find  flaws  in  it.  If  I  were  to  try  it  for  microscopic  measure- 
ments, it  would  fail  me.  But,  as  a  yard-stick,  as  a  three-foot 
measure,  it  is  infallible.  So  with  the  Bible.  Its  infallibility 
is  not  a  microscopic  infinitesimal  infallibility  respecting  all 
particular  things  in  the  heavens  above  or  in  the  earth  beneath, 
or  in  the  waters  under  the  earth.  It  is  an  infallible  rule  of 
faith;  i.  e.,  of  Christian  faith,  of  Gospel  faith,  of  the  faith 
which  is  necessary  to  salvation. 

That,  as  I  have  shown,  is  the  teaching  of  Scripture  itself 
That  is  plainly  the  teaching  of  our  Confession.  It  is  so  in- 
terpreted by  the  most  competent  authorities.  Dr.  Laidlaw, 
Professor  of  Theology  in  the  New  College  in  Edinburgh,  in  a 
recent  address  on  "The  Westminster  Confession  in  the 
light  of  the  present  desire  for  revision,"  speaking  fof  the 
Chapter  on  the  Scriptures,  says  that  "it  refrains  from  de- 
tailed specification  as  to  the  authorship,  age,  or  literary  char- 
acter of  the  canonical  books.     Not  making   these  matters 


1  The  Impregnable  Rock  of  Holy  Scripture.     By  W.  E.  Gladv 
Philadelphia,  J.  D.  Wattles,  p.  1 1  f . 


62  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

essential  to  faith,  it  thus  leaves  open  what  has  been  called, 
perhaps  rather  broadly,  the  whole  field  of  Biblical  Criticism. 
It  deals  in  the  same  manner  with  all  details  as  to  mode  and 
degree  of  inspiration,  which  could  be  consistently  left  open 
by  those  who  accept  the  Scriptures  as  the  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  duty.  Once  more,  while  claiming  for  the  original 
Scriptures  such  immediate  inspiration  and  such  providential 
care  as  fits  them  for  their  purpose,  it  has  refrained  from  such 
assertion  of  verbal  inerrancy  as  Biblical  scholarship  dis- 
allows.'" 

The  leaders  of  English  and  Scotch  Presbyterianism  are 
well  nigh  a  unit  on  this  point.  Dr.  Blalkle,  the  President  of 
the  Presbyterian  Alliance,  and  of  whom  I  need  say  no  more, 
was  solicited  last  year  to  sign  a  paper  condemning  the  views 
of  Dr.  Bruce  and  Dr.  Dods.  He  declined  to  do  so  on  the 
ground  that  while  strongly  maintaining  the  fact  of  inspiration, 
he  could  not  accept  the  rigid  view  which  takes  inspiration  to 
mean  Inerrancy.  "Well  known  facts  in  the  actual  structure 
and  contents  of  Scripture  seem  to  me  to  forbid  it."^  Dr. 
Rainy  Is  well  known  as  Principal  of  the  Free  College  of 
Edinburgh  and  the  leader  of  the  Free  Church.  Last  year, 
in  a  speech  in  the  Free  Assembly,  he  thus  defined  his  per- 
sonal position.  I  quote  from  an  abstract  in  the  British 
Weekly  of  June  6,  1890:  "He  started  with  the  inerrancy 
of  Scriptures,  even  In  details,  as  that  which  he  was  Inclined 
to  hold.  Only  he  refused  to  impose  it  on  others ;  out  and 
out  he  refused  to  do  so,  especially  upon  his  students.  He 
did  so  partly  because  he  thought  such  matters  despicable,  but 
also  because  Scripture  Itself  did  not  seem  to  have  It 
much  at  heart  to  make  them  sure  of  accuracy  of  this  kind ; 
rather,  it  seemed  conspicuously  to  refuse  to  do  so,  and  any 
quotations  to  the  contrary  were  mistakes."     In  the  English 

'  British  Weekly,  November  13,  1890,  p.  34. 
*  British   Weekly,  October  30,  1890,  p.  3. 


BIBLTCAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  63 

Presbyterian  Church,  during  the  recent  discussions  of  the 
New  Confession  of  Faith,  Principal  Dykes,  of  the  Presby- 
terian College  in  London,  the  leading  theologian  of  the 
Church,  Dr.  Munro  Gibson,  who  is  accepted  as  the  incoming 
Moderator,  and  other  leaders,  pronounced  decisively  against 
the  theory  of  inerrancy.  Two  years  ago,  when  Dr.  Dods 
was  nominated  for  the  Exegetical  Chair  of  New  College, 
Edinburgh,  declarations  like  the  following  were  quoted 
against  him:  "I  believe  the  Scriptures  contain  an  infallible 
rule  of  faith  and  life.  I  believe  they  are  the  authoritative 
records  of  the  revelations  which  God  has  made,  but  it  is 
impossible  to  affirm  that  all  the  statements  contained  in 
Scripture  are  strictly  accurate,  impossible,  that  is,  to  claim 
for  Scripture  an  absolute  infallibility."  Pie  was  elected  by  an 
overwhelming  majority.  That  is  enough  to  show  where  the 
Free  Church  stands  on  this  particular  issue. 

Brethren,  our  Church  can  not  afford  to  go  beyond  Scripture, 
beyond  our  own  Confession,  or  beyond  our  sister  churches, 
on  this  question.  "We  hear  about  "dangerous  errors,"  views 
and  utterances  which  tend  to  unsettle  faith.  Let  me  tell  you 
where  the  danger  lies,  as  it  confronts  me  in  my  work  from 
year  to  year.  It  lies  in  putting  the  Bible  in  a  false  position, 
in  claiming  for  it  what  it  does  not  claim  for  itself.  It  lies  in 
a  priori  assumptions  respecting  inspiration  and  infallibility, 
which  are  not  borne  out  by  the  facts.  It  lies  in  holding  up 
your  iron-clad  dogma  of  verbal  inspiration  and  literalistic  in- 
fallibility against  the  advances  made  by  an  humble,  prayerful, 
reverent  investigation  and  criticism  of  Scripture  as  the  Word 
of  God.  I  have  nothing  to  say  in  behalf  of  a  bald  agnostic, 
materialistic  naturalism,  or  of  an  arbitrary,  capricious  ration- 
alism, which,  with  a  priori  dogmatism,  denies  the  superna- 
tural, belittles  or  expunges  sin  and  salvation,  eliminates  out 
of  history  God's  Revelation  of  Himself,  evaporates  nut  of 
the  Bible  its  pneumatic  inspiration,  chops  up  its  contents  into 
lifeless  fragments,  and  sweeps  away  book  after  book  into  the 
5 


64  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

abyss  of  legend  and  myth.  When  the  Biblical  Criticism  of 
our  theological  seminaries  is  found  to  be  engaged  in  that 
business,  when  it  comes  in  conflict  with  the  Bible's  own 
claims  to  pneumatic  inspiration,  then  it  will  be  time  to  sound 
the  alarm,  then  it  will  be  time  for  action.  But  on  the  other 
hand,  a  dogma  of  inspiration,  and  of  the  authority  of  Scrip- 
ture, which,  in  its  mistaken  zeal,  refuses  to  recognize  accom- 
plished results,  antagonizes  the  most  enHghtened,  devout,  and 
believing  Biblical  scholarship  of  the  day,  puts  the  ban  on  all 
inquiry  which  will  not  bow  to  its  rigid  literalism  and  mechan- 
icalism,  such  a  dogma  is  in  our  day,  whatever  it  may  have 
been  in  the  past,  an  obstruction  to  faith,  a  menace  to  the 
unity  and  peace  of  the  Church,  an  arrest  of  the  healthy 
growth  of  Christian  science,  and  a  serious  blight  on  the  free, 
robust,  symmetrical  development  of  the  Christian  life.  You 
protest  against  the  unsettling  of  faith.  You  do  well.  But 
they  also  do  well  who  protest  against  keeping  up  needless 
barriers  to  faith.  You  condemn  criticism  which  destroys  be- 
lief in  the  Scriptures  as  the  Word  of  God.  But  beware  of 
including  in  your  condemnation  the  criticism  which  helps  to 
make  such  belief  in  the  Scriptures  possible.  You  may  be 
sure  that  as  long  as  you  tie  up  faith  in  the  Bible  with  faith  in 
a  secular  inspiration,  as  long  as  you  hang  the  infallible  au- 
thority of  Scripture  as  the  rule  of  faith  on  the  infallible  accu- 
racy of  every  particular  word  and  clause  in  the  Book,  as  long 
as  you  exalt  the  Bible  to  the  same  pinnacle  of  authority  in 
matters  respecting  which  God  has  given  us  clearer,  fuller, 
more  exact  revelations  elsewhere,  as  in  matters  respecting 
which  the  Bible  is  the  only  revelation,  the  irrepressible  con- 
flict between  faith  and  science  will  go  on,  and  the  Drapers 
and  Whites  of  each  generation  will  have  their  new  chapters 
to  add  to  the  record.  Every  new  discovery  in  science  or  in 
archaeology  that  seems  to  contradict  some  particular  statement 
will  produce  a  panic.  Every  advance  in  criticism  will  tend 
to  unsettle  the  faith  of  somebody  whom  your  teaching  has  led 


KIUI.ICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  65 

to  confound  the  form  with  the  substance.  Having  learned 
from  you  that  the  shell  is  part  of  the  kernel,  and  finding  that 
he  can  not  keep  the  shell,  he  will  end  by  throwing  away  both 
shell  and  kernel. 

For  one  I  mean  to  do  my  part  in  putting  an  end  to  this 
mistaken  defense  of  Divine  Revelation.  Shipwrecks  of  faith 
without  number  have  been  caused  by  it.  It  is  the  very  thing, 
according  to  his  own  confession,  that  made  an  unbeliever  of 
the  most  brilliant  scholar  of  France,  perhaps  of  the  world  to- 
day, Ernest  Renau.  It  is  very  thing  that  drove  into  infidelity 
the  strongest  champion  of  the  popular  infidelity  of  England, 
who  died  the  other  day  in  his  unbelief,  Charles  Bradlaugh. 
So  testifies  his  own  brother,  a  believer.  But  for  this  the  iri- 
descent declamation  of  Robert  Ingersoll  in  our  own  country, 
with  his  "  Mistakes  of  Moses,"  would  collapse  like  a  pricked 
balloon.  The  Christianity  of  our  day  can  not  afford  to  fight 
the  battle  of  the  Book  along  that  line.  The  Presbyterianism 
of  our  country  can  not  afford  to  put  itself  in  antagonism  to 
the  most  enlightened  as  well  as  devout  Christian  scholarship 
of  the  day.  It  can  not  afford  to  put  the  yoke  of  bondage  to 
an  exploded  relic  of  post-Reformation  scholasticism  on  the 
consciences  of  our  young  men,  alive  as  they  are  to  the  gains 
of  reverent  and  careful  study  of  the  Book,  and  sensitive  as 
they  can  not  fail  to  be  to  the  humiliation  of  such  bondage. 
It  can  not  afford  to  silence  the  larger,  profounder,  more  Scrij> 
tural  restatements  of  revealed  truth  made  imperative  by  im- 
proved methods  of  Biblical  research.  Nor  can  it  afford  to 
precipitate  any  issue  on  our  churches,  the  surest  result  of 
which  will  be  to  foment  suspicion,  to  drive  out  the  spirit  of 
charity  and  of  justice,  to  gender  misunderstanding  and  alien- 
ation between  our  chairs  of  instruction  and  our  pulpits  and 
pews,  and  to  widen  the  gap  between  honest  inquiry  and  earn- 
est faith. 


Biblical  Scholarship  and  Inspiration. 


II. 

By  henry  preserved  SMITH. 

The  natural  theory  concerning  an  inspired  book  is  illus- 
trated by  the  Mohammedans.  The  prophet  of  Mecca,  in  his 
observation  of  Jews  and  Christians  (in  whom  he  recognized 
worshipers  of  the  true  God,  discovered  their  Scriptures  to  be 
the  source  of  their  religion.  He  classified  them  therefore  as 
"book-people,"  and  endeavored  to  construct  a  similar  sacred 
code  for  his  own  followers.  The  result  is  the  Koran,  whose 
contrast  with  the  Bible  is  in  many  respects  remarkable. 
Throughout  this  book  God  appears  as  the  speaker.  Its  con- 
tents are  made  known  to  the  prophet  by  direct  revelation,  and 
it  is  never  tired  of  emphasizing  its  own  infallibility.  Yet  the 
discrepancies  are  so  marked  that  they  did  not  escape  the  no- 
tice of  the  author  himself,  and  he  propounded  the  theory, 
afterward  elaborated  by  the  commentators,  that  a  later  revela- 
tion must  abrogate  an  earlier  one.  He  confessed  forgetful- 
ness  also,^  and  in  one  instance  avowed  that  Satan  had  insinu- 
ated a  false  revelation  into  his  mind.^ 


^  "Whatever  verses  We  cancel  or  cause  thee  to  forget,  We  give  thee 
better  in  their  stead,  or  the  like  thereof." — Koran,  II,  lOO,  quoted  by 
SirWilliam  Muir,  The  Cordn,  p.  41. 

^  The  "  two  Satanic  verses,"  cf.  Muir,  Life  of  Mahomet  (1877),  p. 
86  sqq. 

(66) 


BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP   AND    INSPIRATION.  C7 

The  transmission  of  this  book  is  well  known.  No  particu- 
lar care  was  taken  of  the  revelations  during  the  author's  life, 
or  for  some  time  after  his  death.  As  the  number  of  his 
"companions  "  was  diminished  by  death,  the  danger  of  losing 
the  revelations  became  evident,  and  with  the  lapse  of  time 
discrepancies  in  the  various  readings  became  marked.  War 
threatened  to  break  out  between  parties  who  swore  allegiance 
to  different  readings.'  One  of  Mohammed's  amanuenses 
was  therefore  commissioned  to  collect  the  fragments  "  from 
date-leaves  and  tablets  of  white  stone,  and  from  the  breasts 
of  men,"  to  which  other  traditions  add  from  fragments 
of  parchment  or  paper,  pieces  of  leather,  and  the  shoulder 
or  rib-bones  of  camels  or  goats.  As  this  standard  text  was 
corrupted  by  careless  copyists,  probably  under  the  influence 
of  still  Hving  tradition,  the  Caliph  Othman  had  an  authorized 
edition  made  by  a  committee  of  scholars.  "Transcripts  [of 
this]  were  multiplied  and  forwarded  to  the  chief  cities  in  the 
empire,  and  the  previously  existing  copies  were  all,  by  the 
Caliph's  command,  committed  to  the  flames.'^  The  text  was 
still  unvocalized,  the  points  not  being  added  until  about  fifty 
years  later. 

Now  the  point  I  wish  to  make  is  this :  We  have  full  knowl- 
edge of  these  details  concerning  the  Koran ;  we  know  its  dis- 
crepancies, its  careless  editing,  the  violent  means  taken  to 
secure  uniformity  in  its  text,  the  late  origin  of  its  vowel  points  ; 
the  Arab  scholars  know  these  also,  for  it  is  from  them  that  we 
get  the  information.  Yet  the  Arab  theory  maintains  the  fol- 
lowing points  : 

1.  The  Koran  is  eternal  in  its  original  essence  and  a  neces- 
sary attribute  of  God. 

2.  It  was  written  down  in  heaven  on  a  "  treasured  tablet," 


^  Or  different  wordings,  for  the  transmission  was  still  largely  oral. 
'■  Muir,  Mahomet,  p.    557. 


68  BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP   AND    INSPIRATION. 

from  which  it  was  communicated  piecemeal  to  Mohammed  by 
the  angel  Gabriel. 

3.  It  is  written  in  an  Arabic  style  which  is  perfect  and  un- 
approachable. ' '  The  best  of  Arab  writers  has  never  suc- 
ceeded in  producing  its  equal  in  merit." 

4.  Every  syllable  is  of  directly  divine  origin.  This  in- 
cludes the  unintelligible  combinations  of  letters  put  at  the 
head  of  certain  Suras. 

5.  Its  text  is  incorruptible,  "and  preserved  from  error  and 
variety  of  reading  by  the  miraculous  interposition  of  God 
himself"  To  account,  however,  for  the  slight  variants  which 
actually  exist,  the  Koran  is  said  to  have  been  revealed  in 
seven  dialects. 

6.  As  being  the  truth  of  God,  it  is  the  absolute  authority, 
not  only  in  religion  and  ethics,  but  also  in  law,  science,  and 
history.^ 

The  point  I  make  is :  This  is  the  kind  of  Bible  we  should 
like  to  have  God  give  us,  and  when  we  construct  for  our- 
selves a  theory  of  revelation  we  do  it  along  these  lines. 
Allow  me  to  illustrate  by  a  brief  review  of  theories  which 
have  been  held  concerning  the  Old  Testament.  We  natu- 
rally begin  here  with  the  Jew. 

First,  however,  let  us  remark  that  the  clear  distinction 
which  our  theologians  make  between  revelation  and  inspira- 
tion is  a  comparatively  modern  distinction.  Inspiration  natu- 
rally goes  w^h  revelation.  It  is  the  divine  method  of  revela- 
tion. A  superintendence  of  the  record  as  distinct  from  the 
giving  of  the  truth  did  not  occur  to  the  ancients,  because 
they  did  not  reflect  upon  the  record,  except  as  containing  the 
truth.  Revelation  and  mspiration  then  are  not  distinguished. 
The  earliest  Jewish  testimonies  concern  themselves  with  the 


■•  The  authorities  for  these  statements  are,  besides  those  already 
quoted,  Noldeke,  Geschichte  des  Qorans ;  Hughes,  Dictionary  of 
Islam ;  Palmer,  the  Qur'dn  (Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  Vol.  VI). 


BIRLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  69 

Imw  as  contained  in  the  book.  This  law  seems  to  be  identi 
fied  with  the  heavenly  Wisdom.*  It  is,  therefore,  as  the  Mo- 
hammedan would  say,  one  of  the  attributes  of  God.  When 
God  would  build  the  world,  he  looked  upon  the  Tora  as  a  builder 
looks  upon  the  plan  of  a  building.*  This  plan  was  delivered 
into  the  hands  of  Moses  at  Sinai  by  the  angels  in  the  form  of 
a  written  book.  This  preference  of  the  Law  to  the  other 
Scriptures  is  very  natural  to  the  Jew,  and  its  consequence  is 
the  distinction  of  two  grades  of  inspiration.  "  Holy  Scripture 
came  into  being  by  the  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  is 
therefore  derived  from  God,  who  speaks  therein.  Neverthe- 
less, there  are  within  the  Scripture  different  grades  of  inspira- 
tion; in  that  the  Law  is  the  primary  revelation,  the  other 
Scriptures  are  secondary." 

In  inquiring  into  the  history  of  this  doctrine  of  inspiration, 
we  are  struck,  however,  by  the  variety  of  opinion  that  has 
prevailed.  Although  the  Jews  give  a  higher  place  to  the 
Law,  yet  at  a  later  time  they  dignified  the  other  books  by 
making  them  also  a  part  of  the  revelation  to  Moses.  "  Rabbi 
Isaac  said  :  "all  that  the  prophets  were  to  prophesy  later  they 
received  from  Mt.  Sinai,  for  so  Moses  declares,  Deut.  .xxi.x: 
i5."  ■*  On  the  other  hand,  that  Ezra  may  not  be  deprived  of 
the  glory  belonging  to  him,  later  opinion  made  him  the 
author  of  the  whole  Hebrew  Bible,  it  having  been  lost  during 
the  captivity.  So  the  Fourth  Book  of  Esdras  declares  (xiv  : 
19-22)  that  the  Law  has  been  burned,  and  Ezra  prays  that  it 
may  be  restored  by  him.  God  grants  his  desire,  ordering 
him  to  provide  five  amanuenses.  When  he  goes  into  the 
open  country  with  the  amanuenses,  God  gives  him  a  cup  to 
drink.     When  he  has  drunk,  he   dictates  to  the  scribes  the 


1  Sirach,  XXIV,  22.  The  reference  to  Baruch,  IV,  I,  given  by 
Weber,  does  not  seem  to  assert  the  existence  of  the  Law/w/w  eternity, 
though  it  asserts  that  it  will  endure  forever. 

«  Bereshith  Rabba,  I. 

*  Shemoth  Rabba,  XXVIII. 


7©  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

twenty-four  books  of  the  Old  Testament  and  seventy  others 
which  he  is  ordered  to  keep  secret.  The  fact  that  such  va- 
rious views  could  be  held  shows  how  impossible  it  is  to  speak 
of  any  established  or  settled  view  of  revelation  or  of  inspira- 
tion at  this  early  time. 

If  we  come  down  to  the  later  period,  however,  we  shall 
discover  a  theory  of  inspiration  which  is  definite  enough, 
though  it  still  refuses  to  distinguish  inspiration  from  revela- 
tion. It  starts  with  the  Law  as  given  at  Mt.  Sinai.  It  iden- 
tifies this  with  the  received  text  of  the  punctuators.  It 
affirms  that  even  the  form  of  the  letters  {litercz  finales,  beih  at 
the  beginning  of  Genesis)  was  ordained  by  God.  "As  Moses 
ascended  the  mountain  he  found  God  making  the  ornamental 
points  [Ketharim]  of  the  letters  [in  the  Law]."  The  ex- 
traordinary points,  the  Qeri  and  Kethibh,  the  division  into 
paragraphs  by  spaces — these  all  were  in  the  divine  model  just 
as  in  a  Hebrew  Bible  of  the  present  day.  Some  scholars, 
however,  were  more  radical  and  affirmed  that  the  vowel 
points  (and,  of  course,  with  them  the  sacred  text)  were  given 
to  Adam  in  paradise.  Others  believed  the  points  to  have 
been  added  by  Ezra  and  the  so-called  Great  Synagogue. 
Mediating  theologians  tried  to  combine  the  different  views. 
Azariah  de  Rossi  supposed  the  points  first  communicated  to 
Adam  in  paradise  and  transmitted  by  him  to  Moses,  to  have 
been  "partially  forgotten  and  their  pronunciation  vitiated 
during  the  Babylonian  captivity ;  that  they  had  been  restored 
by  Ezra,  but  that  they  had  been  forgotten  again  in  the  wars 
and  struggles  during  and  after  the  destruction  of  the  sacred 
Temple ;  and  that  the  Massorites,  after  the  close  of  the  Tal- 
mud, revised  the  system  and  permanendy  fixed  the  pronun- 
ciation by  the  contrivance  of  the  present  signs."' 

To  judge  of  the  success  of  this  author  by  general  experi- 
ence, we  may  conjecture  that  his  well-meant  attempt  brought 


^  Ginsburg,  The  Massoreth  Ha-Massoreth  of  Elias  Levita,  p. 


53- 


BIDLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSIMRA  lloN.  71 

upon  him  the  hatred  of  both  parties.  The  general  opinion 
of  later  Jewish  authorities  is  to  the  effect  that  Ezra  called  a 
convention  of  elders  and  scribes  on  his  return  from  the  (ai>- 
tivity — the  prototype  of  the  later  Sanhedrim.  This  Great 
Synagogue  first  considered  the  subject  of  the  Canon— gather- 
ing the  sacred  text  into  one  volume  and  rejecting  uninsfjired 
writings.  They  then  deliberated  on  the  text,  marking  off  the 
verses,  settling  on  the  correct  reading,  the  use  of  the  vowel 
letters  and  the  Qeri  and  Kethibh.  They  further  added  the 
points,  both  the  vowel  points  and  accents.  As  if  this  were 
not  enough,  they  made  also  the  Aramaic  translations  called 
the  Targums  and  added  the  Massora  proper ;  that  is  to  say, 
they  counted  the  number  of  letters,  words,  and  verses  in  each 
book,  noted  these  figures  in  the  margin,  marked  the  middle 
word  and  verse  in  each  book,  and  called  especial  attention  to 
unusual  forms,  that  the  scribes  might  make  no  mistake.  This 
work,  we  may  suppose,  they  stamped  as  authentic  and  took 
measures  to  have  it  correctly  transmitted.' 

The  influence  of  this  theory  upon  Christian  thinkers  will 
be  noticed  later.  The  theory  itself  is  certainly  rigid  enough, 
and  its  method  would  clearly  secure  an  authentic  Scrijiture. 
The  only  trouble  with  it  is  that  it  is  entirely  unsupported  by 
facts.  The  Great  Synagogue  never  had  any  existence.  It 
has  arisen  from  a  misunderstanding  of  Ezra's  activity  in  the 
great  popular  assembly,  the  account  of  which  is  contained  in 
Neh.  viii.  Ezra's  work  at  that  time  was,  no  doubt,  of  un- 
speakable moment.  But  in  the  account  we  have,  it  is  a 
thoroughly  practical  one,  instructing  the  people  in  the  Law 
and  pledging  them  to  its  observance.  Of  settling  the  Canon 
we  do  not  hear  a  word,  and,  indeed,  we  are  tolerably  certain 
that  the  whole  Canon  was  not  settled  until  a  much  later  date. 
If  Ezra  (the  Great  Synagogue  never  existed,  as  I   have  said) 


1  Buxtorf,   Tiberias,   cc.   X,    XI.      Schnedcrniann,    Die    Controversc 
les  L.  Cappellus  mit  den  Buxtorfen  u.  s.  w.,  p.  27- 


72  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

did  not  even  settle  the  Canon,  much  less  can  we  suppose  that 
he  attended  to  the  scrupulosities  of  the  Massora.  Concern- 
ing the  vowel  points,  we  know  that  they  were  not  invented 
until  somewhere  near  the  eighth  century  of  our  era,  and  that 
the  Massora  is  a  growth  of  many  centuries.  Finally,  the  sur- 
prising uniformity  of  the  Hebrew  text  has  been  secured  by 
the  loss  or  destruction  of  all  copies  that  differed  from  one  au- 
thorized model.  But  this  model  was  settled  upon  certainly 
after  the  first  Christian  century. 

We  are  discussing  the  subject  of  inspiration,  and  it  might 
seem  at  first  sight  as  if  all  this  Jewish  theory  was  irrelevant. 
Let  us  notice,  therefore,  where  we  are.  I  suppose  I  am  right 
in  saying  that  we  mean  by  inspiration  the  divine  influence 
exerted  upon  the  minds  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible,  which  led 
them  to  choose  and  shape  their  material  so  as  to  make  the 
result  the  authoritative  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  The  Jew- 
ish theory  concerning  the  Great  Synagogue  was  shaped  by 
the  same  interest  which  leads  us  to  formulate  a  doctrine  of 
inspiration.  And  when  Elias  Levita  showed  the  late  origin 
of  the  vowel  points,  he  was  violently  accused  of  what  would 
be  called  among  us  "low  views  of  inspiration." 

But  I  wish  to  go  further,  and  as  some  object  to  the  asser- 
tion that  such  a  thing  as  bibliolatry  is  possible,  to  call  your 
attention  to  some  other  theories  which  have  been  held  by  the 
Jews,  and  have  also  had  large  influence  in  the  Christian 
church.  The  Jews  were  in  dead  earnest  when  they  argued 
that  the  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God,  and  therefore  every  item 
in  it  is  true.  They  went  further,  and  concluded  that  every 
item  in  it  is  important  truth  and  worthy  of  God.  In  apply- 
ing the  theory  to  the  facts  they  would  not  be  misled  by  ap- 
pearances. It  does  indeed  seem  that  some  of  the  statements 
are  trivial,  and  taken  in  their  literal  sense  they  make  diffi- 
culties. The  obvious  conclusion  is  that  they  contain  a  deeper 
sense.     The  search  for  this  deeper  sense  leads  to  the  whole 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHir    AND    INSPIRATION. 


73 


system  of  allegorical  interpretation  of  Scripture.  Besides 
this,  some  things  in  Scripture  are  ambiguous  or  obscure. 
If  we  are  to  reach  the  truth  we  must  have  a  guide.  The 
hypothesis  of  an  inerrant  Word  leads  to  the  ilemand  for  an 
inerrant  interpretation.  The  rabbinical  authorities  postulate 
both  a  deeper  sense  and  an  authoritative  interpretation.  The 
latter  is  provided  in  the  so-called  Oral  Law,  which,  though 
embodied  in  comparatively  late  written  documents,  was  held 
to  be  in  fact  as  old  as  Moses,  having  been  transmitted  orally 
from  him  to  the  time  of  its  written  redaction,  a  period  of 
about  seventeen  centuries.  This  view  of  the  Mishna'  (or 
even  of  the  whole  Talmud)  has  been  maintained  until  com- 
paratively recent  times.^  "We  can  not  suppose  that  God 
would  give  an  imperfect  Law.  An  authorized  interpretation 
is  therefore  needed,  which  we  have  in  the  Talmud  (Oral 
Law).  It  is  natural,  therefore,  that  we  [Jews]  hold  to  this 
that  we  may  not  grope  in  darkness."  This  view  is  even  now 
the  view  of  orthodox  Judaism,  and  it  is  in  substance  as  old 
as  the  New  Testament.  For  we  see  that  at  that  time  the 
"traditions  of  the  elders"  had  usurped  the  place  of  the  di- 
vine Law.  It  could  hardly  be  otherwise.  The  Oral  Law,  as 
the  alleged  interpretation  of  the  written  command,  must  be 
immediately  obeyed — it  was  itself  the  medium  through  which 
the  written  Law  was  obeyed.  The  simple  Word  was  insuffi- 
cient, while  the  traditional  decision  exactly  met  the  particular 
need.  The  latter  was  therefore  the  more  important.  This 
is  declared  by  a  recent  Jewish  authority  to  be  "a  universally 
recognized  principle:  the  decisions  of  the  Scribes  are  viore 
weighty  than  those  of  the  Law."  The  logical  result,  therefore, 
of  this  theory  of  inerrancy  was  to  substitute  for  the  Scripture 
the  alleged  authorized  interpretation. 

The  decisions  of  the  wise,  however,  were  concerned  with 


»  Gfrorer,  I,  250  ;  Weber,  87  ;  Jost,  Geschichte  des  Judentums,  I,  0.?. 
*  Creizenach,  quoted  by  Hartniann,  514. 


74  BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

practical  matters,  points  of  casuistry,  such  as  always  arise 
under  a  code  of  morals.  On  the  other  side,  much  even  of 
the  Tora  is  not  embraced  under  the  head  of  command  or 
prohibition.  To  make  use  of  this,  the  system  of  allegory  was 
developed.  "The  fondness  of  the  Jews  for  allegorical  ex- 
position found  its  support  in  the  belief  that  the  excellence  of 
the  Tora  lay  in  the  inexhaustible  spring  of  varied  interpreta- 
tions indicated  in  the  assertion  that  the  revelation  was  first 
given  in  seventy  languages.  This  variety  was  deduced  from 
Jeremiah,  xxiii:  29:  'My  words  are  as  a  fire  and  as  a  ham- 
mer that  breaks  the  rock  in  pieces.'  Who  can  count  the 
fragments  into  which  the  stone  is  shattered  by  a  strong  arm, 
and  who  can  count  the  sparks  sent  forth  by  the  fire  ?"  '  Be- 
sides the  theory  that  each  passage  has  seventy  meanings,  we 
hear  that  Moses  himself  expounded  each  section  in  forty-nine 
difierent  ways.  This  delirium  reaches  its  height  in  the  later 
assertion  which  makes  each  verse  of  the  Law  to  contain  no 
less  than  six  hundred  thousand  meanings,  if  we  may  trust 
the  authority  of  Eisenmenger.'^  But  not  to  insist  upon  this, 
the  methods  of  obtaining  some  of  the  admitted  seventy 
meanings  are  calculated  to  show  the  small  value  of  such  a 
theory.  One  of  these  methods  is  the  so-called  Gematria, 
based  on  the  numerical  value  of  the  letters.  This  value  was 
calculated  for  any  word,  and  the  resulting  number  was  put 
into  the  place  of  the  word,  or  if  this  gave  no  sense  any  other 
word  whose  component  letters  gave  the  same  sum  might  be 
substituted  in  its  place.  The  numerical  value  of  a  single 
letter  might  be  significant.  The  large  ^  {=  70)  in  Deut. 
vi:  4,  is  one  of  the  arguments  for  the  theory  of  seventy 
senses  just  considered.     The  letters  might   be  interchanged 


Hartmann,  534,  quoting  from  Rashi   on  Gen.  xxxiii :  20,  and   Ex. 
II.     The  same  in  substance  from  the  Talmud,  Weber,  84. 
Eisennienger,  Eiudecktes  Judenthum,  I,  458. 


RinHCAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRAI  lUN.  75 

by  Athbash  or  Albam.'  A  word  might  be  taken  as  the  basis 
of  an  acrostic,  each  of  its  letters  taken  as  the  initial  of  a  new- 
word,  or  it  might  be  made  into  another  by  an  anagram.  In 
this  way,  from  the  first  word  of  Genesis  it  was  discovered 
that  the  world  was  created  on  a  New  Year's  day,*  and  a  word 
in  Gen.  ii,  4,  shows  that  the  earth  was  created  for  the  sake 
of  Abraham. 

It  is  clear  that  this  is  simply  exegetical  legerdemain,  and  it 
need  not  detain  us  longer.  Its  main  value  is  that  it  shows 
where  a  high  theory  of  the  value  of  revelation  may  land  us. 
It  is  in  line  with  the  declaration  of  the  Rabbis  that  God  him- 
self studies  the  Law  three  hours  every  day.^  It  brings  with 
it  almost  inevitably  the  magical  application  of  Scripture  ex- 
emplified in  the  use  of  its  verses  as  charms  or  amulets,  in  re- 
gard to  which  we  may  be  pardoned  for  asserting  that  they 
have  no  more  real  efficiency  than  a  leaf  from  the  mass-book. 
But  these  extravagancies  aside,  the  more  sober  form  of  the 
theory  carried  out  in  the  allegorical  interpretation  of  Scripture 
has  been  so  important  in  the  history  of  the  Church  that  we 
may  profitably  look  at  it  a  little  more  closely.  The  most 
prominent  exponent  of  it  among  the  Jews  was  Philo  of  Alex- 
andria, and  his  influence  in  the  early  church  can  scarcely  be 
estimated.  As  a  devout  Jew,  Philo  accepted  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  the  Word  of  God,  whose  inspiration  extended  to  the 
most  minute  particulars,  placing  the  highest  value  upon  the 
Law  as  he  put  Moses  above  the  other  prophets.  He  docs 
not  confine  his  theory  to  the  Hebrew  text,  but  extends  it  to 
the  Greek  translators.  "  He  accepts  the  story  which  ascribes 
to  the  translators  of  the  Pentateuch  a  miraculous  concurrence 
m  the  choice  of  words.  He  speaks  of  the  translators  them- 
selves as  'hierophants  and  prophets,'  and  maintains  that  the 

1  A  for  Z,  B  for  Y,  and  so  on,  would  represent  the  Athbash  in  En- 
glish.    A  for  N,  B  for  O,  and  so  on,  the  Albam. 
»  Reuss,  721;  Buxtorf,  Tiberias  ( 1620  ,  p.  163. 
•■'  Weber,  p.  17. 


76  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  are  such  that  they  must  be 
admired  and  reverenced  '  as  sisters  or  rather  as  one  and  the 
same  both  in  the  facts  and  in  the  words.'  He  fully  acts  upon 
this  belief,  and  .  .  .  accords  to  the  Greek  text  as  profound 
a  veneration  and  faith  as  if  it  had  been  written  by  the  finger 
of  God  himself."  '  On  this  basis  Philo  proceeds  to  discover 
the  hidden  truth  by  means  of  the  allegorical  method.  All 
true  wisdom  is  contained  in  this  reservoir.  Consequently, 
the  Greek  philosophy  must  have  been  derived  from  it.  And 
the  results  obtained  by  his  method  are  really  those  of  Greek 
philosophy.  His  general  system  we  may  pass  by  for  the 
present.  What  interests  us  is  his  theory  of  interpretation. 
This  is  that  each  verse  of  Scripture  has,  besides  its  natural 
grammatical  or  literal  meaning,  a  secondary  or  higher  sense. ^ 
This  latter  is  the  more  important — the  reality  of  which  the 
literal  sense  is  only  the  shadow.  To,  show  what  he  means, 
let  me  quote  the  following :  ' '  The  paradise  in  Eden  is  the 
type  of  virtue.  The  stream  which  waters  it  is  Goodness 
which  divides  into  the  four  streams  of  the  four  cardinal  vir- 
tues." '  Again,  "  the  five  cities  of  the  Plain  destroyed  by 
the  divine  punishment  for  the  abominations  of  their  in- 
habitants are  the  five  senses,  the  instruments  of  sinful 
pleasure."  The  four  ingredients  of  the  incense  (Exod.  xxx, 
33)  represent  the  four  natural  elements.  The  incense  itself 
ascending  to  God  represents  the  adoration  of  the  universe 
made  up  of  these  elements.  In  the  great  allegorical  com- 
mentary to  Genesis,  "  the  leading  thought  is  that  the  history 
of  mankind  as  related  in  Genesis  is  in  fact  an  imposing  psy- 
chology and  ethic.     The  different  men  described  (good  and 


'  Drummond,  Philo,  I,  15. 

'  This  theory  was  not,  of  course,  original  with  Philo,  but  already  in 
use. — Cf.  Schurer,  Geschichte  des  Judischen  Volkes,  II,  871  ;  Hart- 
mann,  536. 

3  Hartmann,  579. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  77 

bad)  are  the  different  conditions  of  the  soul."  '  Astonishing 
as  this  appears  to  us,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  em- 
ployed in  all  seriousness  by  a  devout  and  profound  thinker, 
who  supposed  he  was  engaged  in  developing  the  meaning  of 
the  Word  as  intended  by  God  himself.  And  it  concerns  us 
here  to  notice  that  this  method  of  exegesis  was  compelled  by 
the  rigidity  of  the  theory  in  connection  with  the  nature  of  the 
facts  of  the  record.  The  difficulty  of  interpreting  the  lan- 
guage of  Scripture  literally  was  such  that  the  exegete  took 
refuge  in  the  higher  sense.  The  theory  of  the  later  Rabbis, 
that  the  sacred  text  "  could  contain  nothing  derogatory  to  the 
Deity  and  that  it  could  contain  nothing  contrary  to  sound 
reason,"  was  Philo's  also.  "Adam  and  Eve  could  not  have 
hidden  themselves  from  God,  for  God  has  interpenetrated 
the  universe  and  left  nothing  empty  of  himself;  and,  there- 
fore, the  account  refers  only  to  the  false  conception  of  the 
wicked  man.  ...  To  suppose  that  God  really  planted 
fruit  trees  in  Paradise  when  no  one  was  allowed  to  live  there, 
and  when  it  would  be  impious  to  fancy  that  he  required  them 
for  himself,  is  *a  great  and  incurable  silliness.'  The  refer- 
ence, therefore,  must  be  to  the  paradise  of  virtues  with  their 
appropriate  actions  implanted  by  God  in  the  soul."  '  One  is 
tempted  to  quote  more  at  length,  but  these  examples  are  suffi- 
cient to  show  how  the  allegorical  sense  must,  under  the  claim 
of  doing  the  highest  honor  to  the  Word  of  God,  really  nullify 
its  natural  and  legitimate  meaning. 

From  Philo  the  transition  is  natural  to  the  Christian  Church, 
in  which,  indeed,  Philo  was  honored  almost  as  one  of  the 
Fathers.  Before,  however,  we  inquire  into  methods  of  inter- 
pretation, let  us  notice  the  significant  fact  that  no  one  of  the 
ecumenical  councils  of  the  undivided  church  makes  faith  in 
the  Scriptures  a  test  of  orthodoxy.     Belief  in  the    "Holy 


'  Schiirer.II,  839. 
''  Drummond,!,  19. 


78  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

Ghost  who  spake  by  the  prophets  "  is  professed  in  one  early 
creed,  but  the  indefiniteness  of  the  expression  shows  how 
little  need  was  felt  of  a  definition  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
written  Word.  It  was  after  the  middle  of  the  fourth  century 
before  the  church  felt  the  need  of  officially  defining  even  the 
extent  of  the  Canon,  and  this  was  done  in  provincial  synods 
only,  and  the  Apocrypha  were  included  in  the  Old  Testament. 
In  fact,  as  has  been  said,  "  it  did  not  at  all  seem  at  first  as 
though  Christ  would  found  his  church  upon  a  Scripture,  or 
even  as  though  the  elaboration  of  a  sacred  record  were  an 
essential  feature  of  its  foundation.'"  The  church  was,  in 
fact,  founded  upon  the  spoken  words  of  the  Apostles,  and 
after  the  Apostles  had  been  removed  from  their  earthly  activ- 
ity the  tradition  of  their  words  was  distinct  enough  to  serve 
as  a  guide.  But,  of  course,  the  Old  Testament  had  its  place 
as  a  means  of  instruction,  and  with  it  the  method  of  instruc- 
tion illustrated  in  Philo.  The  Episfle  of  Barnabas  discovered 
in  the  three  hundred  and  eighteen  servants  of  Abraham  a  pre- 
diction of  the  crucified  Jesus. ^  The  method  reminds  us  of  the 
Gematria  of  the  Jews.  Clemens  of  Alexandria  sees  in  the  four 
colors  of  the  Tabernacle,  the  four  natural  elements.  Abra- 
ham's three  days'  journey  to  the  place  of  Moriah  represents 
the  three  stages  of  development  of  the  human  soul.  This 
author,  indeed,  says  in  so  many  words  that  the  whole  Scrip- 
ture has  only  allegorical  sense.* 

Origen,  the  most  learned  man  of  the  time,  perhaps  the 
most  learned  man  of  antiquity,  adopts  this  theory  to  the  full. 
He  distinguishes  a  twofold  or  threefold  sense,  and  values  the 
allegorical  exposition  because  the  simple  grammatical  mean- 
ing of  many  passages  is  incredible  or  unworthy  of  God. 


^  Thiersch  quoted  by  Dietzsch.     Studien  und  Kritiken,  1869,  p.  472. 

*  Diestel,   Geschichte   des   Alten   Testamentes   in   der  Christlichen 
Kirche,  p.  31. 

*  Hartmann,  p.  558. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 


79 


The  Latin  Fathers  accepted  the  same  theory.  Ambrose 
speaks  of  a  threefold  sense— historical  (literal),  mystical,  and 
moral.  If  the  literal  sense  gives  us  a  contradiction,  the  solu- 
tion is  found  in  the  other  senses.  Augustine's  generally 
sober  judgment  follows  the  same  path,  though  his  allegories 
are  rather  types.  Esau  and  Jacob  are  types  of  Jew  and 
Christian.  Abel  represents  the  slain  Christ,  Seth  the  risen 
Christ,  Joseph  the  ascended  Christ.  Ham  is  "the  sly  gen- 
eration of  the  heretics."  Isaac,  blind  in  his  old  age,  pre- 
figures the  blindness  of  the  Jews.  The  rock  twice  smitten 
with  the  rod  points  to  the  cross  of  Christ,  because  two  pieces 
of  wood  [rods]  joined  together  make  a  cross.  Even  Jerome, 
whose  work^as  translator  made  him  especially  sensitive  to 
the  literal  meaning,  follows  the  allegorical  method  in  his  ex- 
position. At  the  same  time,  he  confesses  that  many  diffi- 
culties are  to  him  insoluble.  It  is  of  no  use  to  puzzle  our- 
selves too  much  with  the  literal  sense,  for  the  letter  killeth. 
In  the  chronology,  especially,  he  finds  such  discrepancies 
and  confusion  that  he  leaves  the  subject  to  the  dilettanti.' 

These  examples  will  suffice  to  show  that  the  Church  before 
the  Reformation  had  no  apprehension  of  the  problem  before 
us.  In  a  general  way,  inspiration  was  held  as  connected 
with  revelation.  But  it  was  attributed  to  the  Apocrypha  of 
the  Old  Testament  as  well  as  to  the  canonical  books.  It 
was,  indeed,  attributed  to  many  pseudepigrapha  and  even  to 
heathen  poets  and  philosophers.  But  apostolic  tradition  at 
first,  and  afterward  the  voice  of  the  Church,  was  regarded  as 
equally  inspired,  and  this  tradition  furnished  the  authority  in 
faith  and  morals  upon  which  all  men  leaned.  And  when  the 
difficulties  of  the  Scripture  record  forced  themselves  upon  the 
careful  student,  they  were  explained  by  a  supposed  mystical 
or  spiritual  sense.  In  the  Middle  .A.ge,  the  line  was  not 
sharply  drawn  between  Scripture  and  the  Fathers.      Hugo  of 


Diestel,  pp.  89  and  98. 

6 


8o  BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

St.  Victor,  who  is  more  reserved  than  many  others,  ranks  as 
authorities  (i)  the  Gospels,  (2)  the  other  books  of  Scripture, 
(3)  the  decretals  and  canons  of  the  Church,  {4)  the  writings 
of  the  Fathers.  The  latter  contain  the  same  truth  with  the 
others,  only  more  clear  and  more  expanded.'  The  Roman 
Catholic  Church  stands  on  this  ground  to-day.  The  Council 
of  Trent  formally  asserts  that  it  receives  and  venerates  with 
equal  piety  and  reverence  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testaments,  as  also  the  traditions  dictated  by  Christ's  own 
word  of  mouth  or  by  the  Holy  Ghost  and  preserved  in  the 
Catholic  Church  by  a  continuous  succession.  Recent  publi- 
cations show  that  this  church  also  holds  in  substance  to  the 
allegorical  method  of  exposition.  I  will  simply  call  attention 
here  to  some  examples  which  have  fallen  under  mv  eye : 
Eve  is  a  type  of  the  Virgin  Mary.  Sarah  is  a  type  of  wisdom 
and  virtue,  and  Hagar  a  type  of  philosophy,  the  handmaid 
of  theology.  Keturah's  descendants  represent  the  heretical 
sects  of  New  Testament  times.  Abraham  seeking  a  bride 
for  his  son  is  a  type  of  God  the  Father,  who  also  seeks  a 
bride  (the  Church)  for  His  Son.  Eliezer,  who  is  sent  on  this 
errand,  is  the  representative  of  the  twelve  Aposdes.  The 
well  at  which  Rebecca  is  found  corresponds  to  the  water  of 
baptism,  and  the  presents  brought  by  Eliezer  are  the  divine 
Word  and  the  good  works  of  the  saints.  Jacob's  words,  "  I 
am  Esau,  thy  first  born,"  can  not  be  called  a  lie — they  are  a 
mysterium — in  a  tropical  sense  they  are  true.  Jacob,  in  using 
them,  is  a  type  of  the  Gentiles,  who  claim  and  receive  the 
adoption  and  blessing  belonging  to  the  Jewish  people.  Jacob 
had  two  wives.  So  Christ  calls  the  Jew  and  the  Gentile. 
Leah,  the  tender-eyed,  is  the  blinded  Israel.  Pharaoh,  who 
commanded  the  midwives  to  kill  the  Hebrew  babes,  is  a  type 
of  Satan,  who  tries  to  destroy  the  virtues  by  means  of  human 
science  and  wisdom,  which  often  lead  to  heresies.     Deborah 


1  Diestel,  p.  178. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  8l 

(the  Synagogue)  incites  Barak  (Israel)  to  battle  against  Sisera 
(Satan)  and  routs  his  forces.  Jael  (the  Church)  meets  him, 
stupefies  him  with  milk  (prayer),  and  slays  him  with  the  nail 
(of  the  Cross).  Samson  even  is  made  a  type  of  Christ. 
Now,  these  examples  are  taken  from  a  book  published  with 
the  approval  of  Roman  Catholic  authorities '  within  the  last 
ten  years,  and  written  by  a  professor  of  theology  in  a  distin- 
guished university.  They  show  with  perfect  clearness  how 
the  lofty  profession  of  finding  all  truth  in  the  Bible  really 
unfits  one  to  discover  the  real  truth  of  the  Bible.  It  is  this 
virtual  nullifying  of  Scripture  by  tradition  against  which  the 
Protestant  Church  protests.  To  this  church  we  now  turn 
our  attention. 

The  principle  of  the  Reformation,  I  need  not  remind  you, 
is  a  double  one.  Its  two  parts  are  Justification  by  faith  and 
the  Authority  of  Scripture  alone  in  matters  of  faith  and  life. 
Of  these  two  the  former  is  the  vital  principle,  the  second  is 
regulative.  In  Luther's  own  experience  they  developed  in 
this  order.  He  first  experienced  justification  by  faith.  In 
order  to  maintain  his  Christian  life,  he  had  to  defend  it 
against  the  champions  of  the  Church.  At  first  he  supposed 
he  had  also  the  authority  of  the  Church  on  his  side.  But  in- 
vestigation showed  him  that  this  authority  was  at  least 
divided.  In  this  way  he  was  driven  back  upon  Scripture 
alone.  Luther's  theory  was  in  substance  this:  Christ  is  pre- 
sented to  the  sinner  in  the  Gospel  either  as  heard  in  the 
church  or  as  read  in  the  Bible.  He  is  immediately  recog- 
nized as  the  needed  Savior  and  as  the  Son  of  God.  He  is 
appropriated  by  faith,  and  the  believer  is  justified  and 
adopted  into  the  family  of  God.  Up  to  this  point  it  is  clear 
that  nothing  more  is  claimed  for  the  written  Word  than  that  it 
gives  a  historically  credible  account  of  the  life  of  Christ. 


'  Zschokke,    Hiblische    Frauen    des    Alten    Testamcntcs.      Krciburg, 
1882. 


82  BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP   AND    INSPIRATION. 

The  peculiar  normative  quality  of  the  Word  comes  out 
in  the  subsequent  life  of  the  believer  and  the  church. 
Questions  of  doctrine  and  of  duty  arise.  There  will 
be  perplexities  in  the  individual  heart  as  well  as  differ- 
ences between  different  members  of  the  church.  To  settle 
these  the  appeal  is  to  the  written  Word.  It  is  clear  that 
Luther  would  claim  no  further  infallibility  for  the  Bible  than 
this,  and,  indeed,  he  expressly  declares  as  much  in  his  judg- 
ment of  the  Canon.  He  proposes  this  rule :  What  proclaims 
Christ  is  Scripture.  "  What  does  not  proclaim  Christ  is  not 
apostolic,  though  written  by  St.  Peter  or  by  St.  Paul.  What 
proclaims  Christ  is  apostolic,  though  it  were  written  by  Judas, 
Annas,  Pilate,  or  Herod."  On  this  internal  evidence  he  would 
include  the  first  book  of  Maccabees  in  the  Canon,  as  he 
would  exclude  the  epistle  of  James.  He  can  not  bear  the 
book  of  Esther  because  it  judaizes  so.  In  regard  to  the 
epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  he  takes  the  middle  ground:  ''Al- 
though the  author  does  not  lay  the  foundation  of  faith,  which 
is  the  Apostle's  work,  yet  he  builds  thereon  gold,  silver,  and 
precious  stones,  as  St.  Paul  says.  If  now  some  wood,  hay, 
or  stubble  is  intermixed,  this  shall  not  hinder  our  receiving 
the  precious  doctrine  with  all  honor — nevertheless  we  may 
not  make  this  equal  to  the  apostolic  epistles."'  It  is  quite 
in  accordance  with  this,  that  the  first  doctrinal  treatise  of  the 
Reformation — Melanchthons  Loci — had  no  section  on  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture  at  all,  while  even  in  the  later  editions 
he  only  treats  briefly  the  difference  between  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New.'^  The  early  Swiss  reformers  stand  on  the 
same  ground.  "  The  Word  of  God  in  Christ  is  the  highest 
authority.  Zwingli  finds  church  councils  enough  in  the 
words  of  Christ."  Bullinger  says  in  one  instance  that  the 
writers  of  the  Bible  are  sometimes  led  astray  by  defective 


^  Luther's  Vorreden  zur  Heiligen  Schrift. 

*  Klaiber  in  the  Jahrb.  f.  Deutsche  Theol.  II,  p.  3. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIKATION.  83 

memory.'  Calvin,  as  we  might  expect,  is  more  full  on  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture,  yet  he  does  not  give  a  clear  statement 
as  to  the  connection  of  inerrancy  and  inspiration,  and,  in 
fact,  recognizes  the  difficulties  in  the  case.  He  does  not 
hesitate  to  affirm  that  the  Scriptures  are  written  in  "  a  humble 
and  contemptible  style."  Three  Evangelists  (he  adds  later) 
"recite  their  history  in  a  low  and  mean  style.  Many  proud 
men  are  disgusted  with  that  simplicity,  because  they  attend 
not  to  the  principal  points  of  doctrine. "  '  In  his  commentaries 
he  concedes  minor  errors  and  discrepancies  of  the  writers 
(compare  Tholuck,  p.  131).  What  Calvin  emphasizes,  in 
full  accord  with  Luther,  is  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
"The  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  superior  lO  all  reason  [/.  e., 
to  the  Evidences  usually  adduced  for  Scripture].  For  as  God 
alone  is  a  sufficient  witness  of  himself  in  his  own  Word,  so 
also  the  Word  will  never  gain  credit  in  the  hearts  of  men  till 
it  be  confirmed  by  the  internal  testimony  of  the  Spirit.  It  is 
necessary,  therefore,  that  the  same  Spirit  who  spake  by  the 
months  of  the  prophets  should  penetrate  into  our  hearts  to 
convince  us  that  they  faithfully  delivered  the  oracles  which 
were  divinely  intrusted  to  them.  .  .  .  Some  good  men 
are  troubled  that  they  are  not  always  prepared  with  clear 
proof  to  oppose  the  impious  when  they  murmur  with  im- 
punity against  the  divine  Word,  as  though  the  Spirit  were 
not,  therefore,  denominated  a  seal  and  an  earnest  for  the 
confirmation  of  the  faith  of  the  pious;  because,  till  He 
illuminate  their  minds,  they  are  perpetually  fluctuating  amidst 
a  multitude  of  doubts.  Let  it  be  considered,  then,  as  an  un- 
deniable truth,  that  they  who  have  been  inwardly  taught  by 
the  Spirit  feel  an  entire  acquiescence  in  the  Scripture,  and 
that  it  is  self-authenticated,  carrying  with  it  its  own  evidence, 
and  it  ought  not  to  be  made  the  subject  of  demonstration  and 


Quoted  by  Tholuck  Zeilschr.  fur  Chiistl,  Wi^sciiM-liaft,  I,  139. 
Institutes,  I,  VIII,  X,  and  XI. 


84  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

arguments  from  reason ;  but  it  obtains  the  credit  which  it  de- 
serves with  us  by  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit."  ^  There  can 
be  no  doubt  that  these  words  of  Calvin  correctly  state  the 
position  of  the  reformers.  They  are  the  source  of  the  state- 
ments of  the  Protestant  creeds  on  this  subject,  nearly  all  of 
which  emphasize  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  no 
one  of  which  ventures  to  affirm  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture 
apart  from  matters  of  faith  and  doctrine,  unless  it  be  the 
Swiss  Formula  Consensus,  of  which  I  shall  speak  later.^  If, 
now,  we  ask,  what  it  is  that  we  are  assured  of  by  this  testi- 
mony, we  shall  agree  that  it  is  the  articles  of  sin  and  law  and 
grace  which  Melanchthon  makes  the  subjects  of  his  Loci. 
Or,  as  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  says :  Three  things  are 
necessary  for  me  to  know  :  first,  the  greatness  of  my  sin  and 
misery ;  second,  how  I  am  redeemed  from  all  my  sins  and 
misery ;  third,  how  I  am  to  be  thankful  to  God  for  such  re- 
demption. These  are  the  things  which  the  Holy  Spirit  sets 
before  us  in  Scripture,  and  moved  by  that  same  Holy  Spirit, 
we  recognize  in  the  portraiture  the  divine  author  and  accept 
the  Word  as  His.  "All  in  this  book  is  tributary  to  sin  and 
salvation;  all  leads  up  to  Calvary."  This  I  heard  from  one 
of  our  own  pulpits  recently,  and  this  is  in  harmony  with  the 
voice  of  the  Evangelical  Church  in  her  creeds  and  con- 
fessions. 

But  because  we  recognize  the  divine  authorship  of  the  doc- 
trine set  forth  in  the  Bible,  does  it  follow  that  we  have  a 
guarantee  for  every  detail  of  its  historical  statement  ?  Be- 
cause you  recognize  the  voice  of  God  addressing  you  as  a 
sinner,  and  freely  inviting  you  to  Christ,  can  you  therefore 
assert,  for  example,  that  the  list  of  Dukes  of  Edom,  in  Gen- 
esis (ch.  xxxvi),  is  exactly  and  absolutely  correct  ?     This  is 

1  Institutes,  VII,  IV  and  V. 

^  The  Irish  Articles  which,  however,  were  soon  superseded  by  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles,  affirm  the  Canonical  Books  to  be  of  "  most  cer- 
tain credit  "  as  well  as  of  the  highest  authority. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  85 

the  question  which  confronts  us  when  we  come  to  make  the 
Bible  a  historical  study.  It  is  evident  that  the  great  reform- 
ers would  have  answered  the  question  in  the  negative,  and 
they  would  have  declared  that  whether  this  list  were  correct 
or  not  made  no  difference  as  to  the  main  question.  The  fol- 
lowing generation  of  theologians,  however,  did  not  so  answer 
the  question.  From  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  they  deduced 
its  historical  accuracy  on  every  point.  The  reasons  for  this 
are  not  far  to  seek.  After  the  Council  of  Trent,  the  Roman 
Catholic  polemic  became  sharper.  It  became  the  endeavor 
of  the  Roman  Catholic  party  to  show  the  necessity  of  tradi- 
tion and  the  untrustworthiness  of  Scripture  alone.  This  led 
the  Protestants  to  defend  the  Bible  more  tenaciously  than  be- 
fore. In  addition,  the  scholastic  philosophy,  though  almost 
contemptuously  rejected  by  Luther,  still  influenced  the  minds 
of  men.  The  thick  quartos  of  Gerhard,  as  has  been  recently 
said,  would  lose  a  good  part  of  their  dimensions  were  they 
deprived  of  what  was  borrowed  from  Thomas  Aquinas. 
We  are  here  concerned  simply  with  the  effect  of  this  move- 
ment upon  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture.  This  doctrine 
was  of  course  more  sharply  formulated.  It  was  extended  to 
the  style  of  the  writers.  It  affirmed  that  each  book  of 
the  Canon  must  have  been  formally  approved  and  joined  to 
the  others  as  soon  as  written.  It  went  great  lengths  m  affirm- 
ing the  perspicuity  of  Scripture,  or  if  it  admitted  the  difficulty 
of  some  passages,  it  explained  them  as  God's  method  of  stim- 
ulating study  by  curiosity,  or  even  as  the  divine  arrangement 
for  impressing  upon  the  laity  due  respect  for  the  learning  of 
the  ministry.  Finally  the  errorless  transmission  was  made 
equally  a  matter  of  logical  deduction.  That  I  may  not  be 
suspected  of  exaggeration,  let  me  give  you  a  few  details.  It 
was  denied  by  Voetius  "that  any  examination  or  reflection 
was  necessary  on  the  part  of  the  inspired  writer  in  regard  to 
that  which  was  written,  since  it  was  given  him  immediately 


86  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

and  in  an  extraordinary  manner," '  contradicting  Luke  i :  1-4. 
Even  the  language  and  style  of  the  Bible  must  be  wholly 
faultless.  Diversity  of  style  was  denied  or  explained  as  a 
matter  of  divine  choice  simply.  "The  Holy  Spirit  had  a 
preference  \singularc7n  gustuni\  for  the  style  of  Polybius; 
therefore  he  chose  this  among  all  then  existing  Greek  styles."  * 
Quotations  already  made  show  how  much  more  correct  was 
Calvin's  view.  "  Whatever  is  related  by  the  Holy  Scriptures 
is  absolutely  true  \i^€rissima\,  whether  it  pertains  to  doctrine, 
morals,  history,  chronology,  topography,  or  nomenclature ;  and 
there  can  be,  there  must  be,  no  ignorance,  carelessness  or  for- 
getfulness  attributed  to  the  amanuenses  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in 
writing  the  sacred  books."  ^  The  consequence  is  drawn  with 
rigor — there  can  be  no  error  in  the  transmission  no  more 
than  in  the  original.  For  where  would  be  the  certainty  or 
truth  of  Scripture,  were  there  any  errors  of  transmission? 
So  far  we  have  been  describing  the  Lutheran  view.  The 
same  tendency  is  visible  in  the  Reformed  Church.  But  it  is 
worth  noting  that  this  period  of  stringent  devotion  to  the  in- 
fallibility of  Scripture  is  the  period  of  the  bitterest  polemic 
among  the  Protestant  Churches.  Calovius,  the  most  con- 
sistent upholder  of  this  doctrine  of  inspiration,  was  one  of  the 
bitterest  enemies  of  the  Calvinists,  hated  them  worse  than  he 
did  the  Roman  Catholics,  used  his  influence  to  put  them 
down  by  the  civil  power,  and  attacked  with  all  the  virulence 
of  a  strong  and  uncompromising  nature  Calixtus,  who  tried 
to  find  a  modus  vivendi  with  the  other  churches.  Nor  should 
we  forget  here  that  this  was  the  century  m  which  the  Coper- 
nican  system  triumphed  in  astronomy,  and  that  among  its 
opponents  were   found  these  theologians  who  opposed  to  it 


1  Van  Oosterzee,  Dogmatics,  I,  171. 

^  Calovius  quoted  by  Klaiber,  Zeitsch.  Luther.  Tlieol.,  1864,  23. 
'  Quenstedt    quoted    by  Luthardt,  Compendium    der  Dogmatik,   p. 
294. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSi'lKATlON.  87 

indubitable  proofs  from  Scripture.'  In  the  Reformed  churches 
there  was  the  same  tendency  to  emphasize  the  divine  factor 
in  inspiration.  The  influence  of  the  two  JJuxtorfs  in  the 
Swiss  churches  led  to  an  especial  emphasis  on  the  Jewish  the- 
ories of  the  Old  Testament  Canon.  It  was  held  that  the 
Canon  was  settled  by  the  Great  Synagogue,  and  that  the 
points  were  a  part  of  the  revelation  to  Ezra,  from  whom  also 
the  Massora  was  derived. 

The  ascription  of  the  points  to  Adam  even  was  rc\  ivcd  by 
some  zealous  theologians.  The  younger  Buxiorf  found  it 
difficult  to  decide  between  Adam,  Moses,  and  Ezra  as  the 
original  punctuator.  The  discussion  of  this  point  led  to  the 
ado])tion  of  the  Swiss  Formula  Consensus,  in  1675,  which  de- 
clared the  vowel  points  to  be  inspired.  This  is  the  only 
Protestant  creed,  however,  which  took  such  a  stand,  and  it 
was  of  only  local  importance,  and  even  in  Switzerland  it  had 
but  temporary  validity.  It  is  evident  then  that  these  higl. 
and  stringent  theories  were  never  the  theories  of  the  church. 
In  fact,  there  never  were  lacking  men  in  the  Evangelical 
churches  who  protested  against  them  or  who  refused  to  ac- 
cept them.  The  history  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Hebrew  vowel 
points  is  instructive  in  this  regard,  and  for  this  reason  I  ven- 
ture to  call  attention  to  it  somewhat  more  at  length. 

As  there  may  be  some  laymen  interested  in  this  matter,  let 
me  explain  that  the  letters  of  the  Hebrew  alphabet  are,  in  their 
original  force,  all  consonants.  The  vowels  are  supplied  by 
smaller  signs,  called  points,  placed  in,  over  or  beneath  the  letters. 
The  three  letters  ktl  may  represent,  therefore,  a  number  of  dif- 
ferent forms,  as  katal,  kittel,  kotel,  kuttal.  In  practice  however 
the  context  is  nearly  always  sufficient  to  decide  what  word  is 
intended  in  a  particular  place,  and  no  difficulty  is  felt  by  the 
practiced  scholar  in  reading  unpointed  texts,  and  these  are  in 
use  in  all  Hebrew  books  except  the  Bible.     For  the  sake  of 


So  Calovius  and  Voetius,  cf.  Gass,  pp.  342.  461 


50  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

accuracy,  however,  the  Bible  is  generally  written  (and  printed) 
with  the  points.  As  we  have  seen,  the  later  Jewish  theory 
ascribes  these  points  to  Ezra,  if  not  to  Moses  or  Adam,  and 
this  opinion  was  embraced  by  the  Buxtorfs  and  others,  who 
felt  that  God  could  not  have  committed  his  Word  to  an  un- 
certain script.  The  attack  on  this  view  was  made  about  the 
same  time  by  two  men.  One  of  them,  Morinus,  was  a  Ro- 
man Catholic,  and  he  was  (at  least,  partially)  moved  by  a  de- 
sire to  overthrow  the  security  of  the  Protestants,  and  to  prove 
the  necessity  of  the  tradition  of  the  Church,  in  order  to  a 
correct  interpretation  of  the  Bible.  But  he  called  attention 
to  facts  overlooked  by  the  Protestants,  and  so  far  forth  aided 
to  a  correct  solution  of  the  problem — eventually  that  is,  for  his 
polemic  tone  hindered  at  first  a  correct  estimate  of  his  argu- 
ments. The  other  champion  of  the  late  origin  of  the  points 
was  Ludovicus  Cappellus,  professor  in  the  French  Protestant 
College,  at  Saumur.  He  was  at  first,  as  he  avows,  of  the 
opinion  of  Buxtorf.  Against  his  will,  he  was  forced  by  facts 
to  the  opposite  conclusion.  His  observations  were  embodied 
in  a  treatise,^  the  MS.  of  which  was  sent  to  Buxtorf  the  elder 
for  his  opinion.  As  this  distinguished  scholar  advised  against 
the  publication,  Cappellus  sent  the  manuscript  to  Erpenius,  a 
distinguished  Dutch  orientalist,  and  Erpenius  published  it  at 
once,  with  a  preface  of  his  own,  but  without  the  author's 
name.  The  history  of  the  younger  Buxtorfs  attack  and  Cap- 
pellus's  rejoinder  need  not  be  given  in  detail.  But  we  may 
learn  something  from  the  method  of  argument  pursued.  It 
is,  on  Cappellus's  side,  partly  a  careful  examination  of  the 
reasons  adduced  by  the  advocates  of  antiquity,  partly  the 
marshaling  of  facts  by  them  overlooked  or  not  allowed  due 
weight.  For  example,  it  had  been  alleged  that  the  points  are 
necessary  to  the  correct  understanding  of  the  text.      But  this 


1  Arcanum  Punctationis   Revelatum.     Republished   in  one  volume, 
folio,  with  the  Notae  Criticae  and  the  Vindiciae  Arcani,  1689. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRAlluN.  89 

is  by  no  means  so.  Modern  Hebrew,  as  well  as  Syria.-  and 
Arabic,  are  constantly  read  and  printed  without  points,  and 
no  difficulty  is  felt  in  reading  and  understanding  them  by 
those  familiar  with  the  languages.  Again,  the  opinion  (jf  the 
Jews  had  been  alleged.  But  this  is  by  no  means  unanimous, 
and  in  fact  the  weight  of  authority  is  rather  against  the  an- 
tiquity than  for  it.  Klias  Levita,  himself  no  mean  scholar, 
was  sustained  by  Kimchi  and  other  distinguished  authorities. 
And  among  the  authorities  cited  by  Bu.xtorf  some  were  ccr 
tainly  of  very  recent  date.  So  far  the  reply  to  allegations. 
Now  positive  arguments  are  the  following;  first,  the  argu 
ment  from  silence.  The  points  are  not  mentioned  by  Jerome 
or  by  the  Talmud.  Buxtorf  might  reply  indeed:  "They 
may  have  existed,  nevertheless."  And  indeed  the  silence  of 
an  author  concerning  a  fact  may  not  prove  the  non-existence 
of  the  fact.  But  in  some  circumstances  the  argument  from 
silence  is  very  weighty  indeed.  Jerome  had  frequent  occa- 
sion to  discuss  points  of  Hebrew  grammar.  He  mentions 
the  letters  and  their  occasional  ambiguity.  Had  the  points 
existed,  he  would  surely  have  mentioned  them ;  and  so  of  the 
Talmud,  which  often  discusses  the  different  possible  mean- 
ings of  Bible  verses.  Again,  the  fact  that  the  Jews  use  an 
unpointed  roll  of  the  Law  in  the  synagogue,  shows  that  the 
points  are  not  ancient.  Ecclesiastical  customs,  as  we  know, 
are  conservative — tenacious  of  old  forms.  Had  the  points 
been  introduced  by  Ezra,  they  would  have  been  introduced 
everywhere.  The  unpointed  synagogue  rolls  are  survivals 
of  ancient  custom.  Another  argument  is  the  complication 
of  the  system  itself.  It  is  entirely  too  elaborate  to  be  the  in- 
vention of  a  single  age;  it  bears  all  the  marks  of  having 
grown  up  through  several  generations.  To  all  these  argu- 
ments Buxtorf  can  only  reply  by  hypotheses  designed  to  ad- 
mit what  he  was  compelled  to  admit,  but  at  the  same  time  to 
show  how  his  theory  might  be  held  nevertheless.      His  main 


90  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

argument  was  the  danger  to  the  Christian  faith  of  the  new 
hypothesis. 

As  I  have  said,  it  is  now  known  as  definitely  as  any  historic 
facts  can  be  known  that  Cappellus  was  right.  The  points 
were  not  invented  until  after  the  redaction  of  the  Talmud,  and 
they  were  then  gradually  developed  through  two  or  three 
centuries.  The  reasons  which  establish  this  fact  are  those 
urged  by  Cappellus  himself.  Notice,  they  are  critical  reasons, 
mainly  belonging  to  what  we  now  know  as  the  lower  criticism 
to  be  sure,  but  critical  nevertheless.  And,  indeed,  it  is  often 
difficult  to  draw  the  line  between  the  lower  criticism  and  the 
higher.  Criticism  is  simply  the  careful  examination  of  the 
facts  to  discover  what  they  really  teach.  It  takes  no  asser- 
tions without  examining  the  grounds  on  which  they  are  made. 
And  having  carefully  examined  the  facts,  it  seeks  for  the 
hypothesis  which  will  most  naturally  explain  them  all. 

The  point  we  have  reached  is  the  high  water  mark  of  the 
doctrine  of  inspiration.  We  have  discovered  that  the  early 
church  had  no  doctrine  of  inspiration  in  our  sense  of  the 
word  inspiration.  Its  affirmations  are  invalidated  by  a  theory 
of  allegory  which  completely  overshadows  and  destroys  the 
true  sense  of  Scripture.  The  reformers  who  swept  this  away 
were  concerned  with  the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which 
assures  us  of  matters  of  doctrine  and  duty  in  the  Word  of 
God,  with  no  interest  m  affirming  historic  inerrancy.  The 
extreme  development  of  Protestant  dogmatics  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  in  opposition  to  the  Roman  Catholic  polemic, 
led  to  unwarranted  emphasis  of  the  divine  side  of  Scripture 
and  an  almost  total  ignoring  of  the  human  side.  This  the- 
ology, in  strict  logic,  as  it  supposed,  affirmed  the  perfection 
of  style  of  the  Bible,  its  freedom  from  grammatical  errors, 
the  absence  from  it  of  accommodation  to  human  limitations, 
its  strict  accuracy  even  in  the  matter  of  natural  science,  to- 
pography, and  chronology,  and  finally  its  miraculous  preserva- 
tion from  transmissional   corruption  by  means  of  the  Masso- 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  Qr 

retic  system.'  The  majority  of  these  points  are  now  uni- 
versally given  up. 

It  is  of  more  importance  to  note  that  this  extreme  theory 
was  always  the  theory  of  some  theologians  only.  There  al- 
ways were  evangelical  and  devout  men  who  did  not  accept  it. 
But  that  I  may  not  weary  you  with  historical  details,  let  me 
come  down  to  the  practical  point  of  the  teaching  of  to-day. 
I  shall  probably  not  be  wrong  in  assuming  that  so  much  of 
the  theory  of  verbal  inerrancy  as  can  be  held  at  the  present 
day  is  held,  stated,  and  defended  by  Prof.  Gaussen,  late  of 
Geneva,  whose  book  on  inspiration  '  has  in  our  theological 
world  almost  the  dignity  of  a  classic.  I  will  endeavor  to 
state  his  theory. 

Prof.  Gaussen  states  his  case  in  this  way  (p.  40):  "The 
Scriptures  are  given  and  guaranteed  by  God  even  in  their 
very  language."  As  an  alternate  statement  of  the  same  thing 
he  gives:  "The  Scriptures  contain  710  error;  that  is,  they  say 
all  they  ought  to  say,  and  only  what  they  ought  to  say." 
You  will  notice  that  the  point  upon  which  the  whole  theory 
turns  is  the  definition  of  the  word  error.  It  is  clear  that  the 
author  means  error  of  any  kind,  for  later  he  admits  "that  if 
it  be  true  that  there  are,  as  is  said,  erroneous  statements  and 
contradictory  accounts  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  their  plenary 
inspiration  must  be  renounced."  (P.  no.)  The  alleged 
errors  which  he  discusses  under  this  head,  and  the  existence 
of  which  he  denies,  are  discrepancies  in  the  Gospel  narrative, 
points  of  chronology,  and  matters  of  physical  science.  In 
regard  to  the  last  named  he  says  :  "We  freely  admit  that  if 
there  are  any  physical  errors  fully  proved  in  the  Scriptures, 
the   Scriptures  could  not  be   from  God.      But  we  mean  to 


'  No  one  seems  to  have  been  staggered  by  the  fact  that  the  Old  Tes- 
tament alone  received  such  a  remarkable  system  for  its  preservation. 

»  Theopneusty,  or  the  Plenary  Inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scrijxurcs. 
Translated  by  E.  N.  Kirk.     Ne'v  York,  1842. 


92  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

show  there  are  none,  and  we  shall  dare  to  challenge  the  ad- 
versaries to  produce  one  from  the  entire  Bible."  He  then 
proceeds  to  show  the  accuracy  of  the  expression  in  Joshua, 
"the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of  heaven."  There  is,  then, 
he  says,  "rjo  physical  error  in  Scripture,  and  this  great  fact, 
which  becomes  more  admirable  in  proportion  as  it  is  more 
closely  contemplated,  is  a  striking  proof  of  the  inspiration 
which  has  dictated  to  their  writers  even  in  the  choice  of  the 
least  expression."  There  would  seem  to  be  no  doubt,  there- 
fore, of  the  meaning  of  this  author.  I  have  always  supposed 
Dr.  Charles  Hodge  to  mean  the  same  thing  when  he  says 
(Theol.,  I,  152)  that  the  Scriptures  are  "free  from  all  error, 
whether  of  doctrine,  fact,  or  precept."  If  what  the  sacred 
writers  assert,  he  says  later  (p.  163),  '■'■God  asserts,  which,  as 
has  been  shown,  is  the  Scriptural  idea  of  inspiration,  their  as- 
sertions must  be  free  from  error."  Again,  he  says,  "the 
whole  Bible  was  written  under  such  an  influence  as  preserved 
its  human  aMthors  from  all  error,  and  makes  it  for  the  Church 
the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  Notice  there  are 
two  statements  here.  Had  Dr.  Hodge  contented  himself 
with  affirming  that  the  whole  Bible  was  written  ' '  under  such 
an  influence  as  makes  it  for  the  church  the  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,"  no  one  could  have  objected.  The  other 
clause  is  the  one  to  which  we  object,  and  whose  application 
to  the  Old  Testament  I  affirm  to  be  impossible.  Drs.  Hodge 
and  Warfield,  in  their  well-known  article,  say:  "It  is  evi- 
dent, therefore,  that  every  supposed  conclusion  of  critical  in- 
vestigation which  denies  the  apostolic  origin  of  a  New  Testa- 
ment book,  or  the  truth  of  any  part  of  Christ's  testimony  in 
relation  to  the  Old  Testament  and  its  contents,  or  which  is 
inconsistent  with  the  absolute  truthfulness  of  any  affirmation  of 
any  book  so  authenticated,  must  be  inconsistent  with  the  true 
doctrine  of  inspiration;"  and  again:  "the  historical  faith  of 
the  Church  has  always  been  that  all  affirmations  of  Scripture 
of  all  kinds,  whether  of  spiritual  doctrine  or  duty,  or  of  phys- 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSI'IRAIKiN.  9j 

ical  or  historical  fact,  or  of  psychological  or  philosophical 
principle,  are  without  any  error  when  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the 
original  autographs  are  ascertained  and  interpreted  in  their 
natural  and  intended  sense."  '  These  statements  arc  exactly 
in  line  with  those  of  the  authors  quoted  above,  except  that 
they  make  a  reservation  concerning  the  transmission  of  the 
documents.  Now,  these  authors  (p.  237)  admit  that  this 
statement  is  to  be  tried  by  the  facts,  and  it  is  to  the  facts  of 
the  Old  Testament  that  I  propose  to  go.  First,  however, 
allow  me  a  word  of  personal  explanation.  Some  years  ago, 
when  a  candidate  for  ordination,  I  received  as  a  text  for  my 
trial  sermon  the  well-known  passage  of  II  Timothy,  "All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God."  In  that  sermon  I 
took  the  very  ground  of  the  authors  I  have  been  quoting. 
For  more  than  fifteen  years  since  that  time  I  have  been  en- 
gaged in  the  direct  daily  study  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  has 
been  my  duty  to  familiarize  myself  with  the  facts  of  the  rec- 
ord, and  as  well  with  the  statements  of  scholars  about  those 
facts.  I  well  recall  the  reluctance  which  I  felt  to  read  some 
books  which  departed  from  "  the  views  commonly  received 
among  us,"  and  on  reflection  I  can  not  convict  myself  of  un- 
due sympathy  with  German  mysticism  or  rationalism.  IJut  I 
have  felt  it  my  duty  to  know  facts,  and  I  sincerely  believe 
that  the  truth  of  God  is  evident  in  all  the  facts  of  his  Word. 
But  in  the  examination  of  facts  to  which  I  now  proceetl,  re- 
member that  it  is  my  desire  to  give  no  one  pain.  And  I  ask 
you  not  to  take  my  statement,  but  to  examine  the  record 
itself.  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  well  says  (I,  p.  11):  "Almost  all 
false  theories  in  science  and  false  doctrines  in  theology  are 
due  in  a  great  degree  to  mistakes  as  to  matters  of  fact." 
Three  classes  of  facts  seem  to  have  been  ignored  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  an  inerrant  inspiration. 


Presbyterian    Review,     1881,    pp.    236    and    238.     The    italics    .ire 


94  BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

I.  The  first  class  is  the  least  important  and  may  be  said  not 
to  bear  upon  inerrancy.  It  includes  the  cases  where  writings 
have  been  included  in  the  books  of  those  who  were  not  their 
authors.  I  will  not  take  up  the  Pentateuch  which  has  re- 
cently been  discussed  at  length  by  others.  The  hypothesis 
of  a  redactor  there  has  met  with  so  little  favor  that  it  may 
be  well  to  strengthen  his  position  by  showing  his  activity 
elsewhere.  Look  first  at  the  Minor  Prophets.  We  have 
them,  as  you  know,  in  twelve  separate  books.  They  are, 
however,  in  the  Hebrew  Bible  one  book.  It  is  clear  that 
an  editor  has  gathered  together  what  prophetic  fragments 
were  in  circulation  in  his  time  and  united  them  in  one  roll. 
His  activity  was  confined  to  arranging  them  in  order.  He 
may  have  added  the  titles  in  some  cases,  but  his  knowledge 
of  the  authors  was  slight.  That  Joel  was  the  son  of  Pethuel ; 
that  one  fragment  was  a  vision  of  Obadiah,  and  that  one  con- 
tained the  word  of  the  Lord  to  Israel  by  Malachi— these  are 
very  slight  additions  to  our  knowledge.  Suppose,  now,  he 
found  a  fragment  without  the  author's  name  and  inserted  it 
in  the  series.  It  would  not  have  been  distinguished  externally 
from  the  work  of  the  author  immediately  preceding.  This  is 
what  the  critics  suppose  actually  to  have  taken  place.  In  the 
book  assigned  to  Zechariah  there  is  a  sharp  distinction  in 
style  and  situation  between  the  first  eight  chapters  and  the 
rest  of  the  book.  The  second  half  is  assigned  to  an  older 
prophet.  Strictly  speaking  the  hypothesis  does  not  contra- 
dict the  doctrine  of  inerrancy,  and  I  should  not  have  alluded 
to  it  except  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  similar  case  which  has 
made  no  small  scandal  in  the  theological  world.  I  allude,  of 
course,  to  the  book  of  Isaiah.  Divest  your  mind  of  precon- 
ceptions now  and  look  at  this  case.  Let  us  suppose  the  re- 
dactor of  the  book  of  the  Minor  Prophets  to  have  had  a 
book  of  Isaiah  which  included  only  the  first  thirty-nine 
chapters  of  our  book  of  that  name.  He  has  also  in  his 
possession   the    magnificent   evangelical  prophecy   which    is 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION.  95 

more  familiar  to  us  th^n  almost  any  other  part  of  the  Old 
Testament.  He  does  not  know  the  author's  name,  or  per- 
haps it  is  not  safe  to  have  it  known.  What  more  likely 
than  that  he  should  make  of  it  an  appendix  to  the  book  of 
the  kindred  prophet — the  two  together  make  up  a  roll  about 
the  size  of  the  book  of  the  Twelve.  This  would  not  be  out 
of  harmony  with  the  process  of  gathering  the  other  book,  and 
the  only  way  in  which  it  would  violate  the  strictest  theory  of 
inspiration  is  in  making  appear  as  Isaiah's  what  is  not  his. 
But  it  will  be  replied,  as  has  so  often  been  repHed,  this  is 
a  merely  gratuitous  hypothesis,  one  of  those  wild  vagaries  of 
the  German  seekers  after  novelty  of  which  we  have  had  so 
many.  Let  us  look,  therefore,  at  the  arguments  by  which 
the  critics  support  their  vagary. 

In  the  first  place,  it  is  known  that  the  earliest  order  of 
the  prophetical  books  in  the  Old  Testament  Canon  was  Jere- 
miah, then  Ezekiel,  then  Isaiah.  The  only  reason  for  de- 
parting from  the  chronological  order  that  can  be  suggested  is 
that  the  Book  of  Isaiah  was  felt  to  be  an  anthology  like  that 
of  the  Minor  Prophets. 

Secondly,  it  is  rather  curious  that  a  narrative  piece  (chap- 
ters xxxvi-xxxix)  should  be  found  in  the  middle  of  the  Book 
of  Isaiah.  Such  a  notice  would  come  more  naturally  at  the 
close  of  the  book.  We  actually  find  one  at  the  end  of  Jere- 
miah. There  is  nothing  extravagant  in  the  supposition,  there- 
fore, that  the  redactor  of  Isaiah's  works  had  concluded  his 
book  with  this  historical  notice,  and  that  the  last  twenty-seven 
chapters  were  added  to  a  book  already  complete. 

The  third  argument,  from  style,  is  of  course  less  obvious 
to  the  English  reader,  but  I  think  even  the  English  reader 
will  discover  differences. 

Lastly,  the  situation  in  the  second  part  of  the  book  is  en- 
tirely different  from  that  in  the  first  part.  Read  over  the  first 
chapter  of  Isaiah  as  a  characteristic  sermon  of  the  j)rophet. 
Note  the  commanding  tone  in  whit  h  he  calls  heaven  and 
7 


g6  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

earth  to  hear  his  arraignment  of  Israel.  Look  at  the  Israel 
he  depicts  in  its  pride  and  sinfulness  and  hypocrisy.  "  Hear 
the  word  of  Jehovah,  rulers  of  Sodom !  Give  ear  to  the  in- 
struction of  our  God,  people  of  Gomorrha !  To  what  pur- 
pose is  the  multitude  of  your  sacrifices,  saith  Jehovah?  I 
am  sated  with  holocausts  of  rams  and  the  fat  of  fatlings ;  and 
the  blood  of  bulls  and  lambs  and  goats  I  do  not  delight  in. 
When  ye  come  to  see  my  face — who  hath  required  this  at 
your  hands,  to  trample  my  courts  ?  Bring  no  more  vain  ob- 
lations ;  incense  is  an  abomination  to  me ;  new  moon  and 
Sabbath  the  calling  of  assembly — I  can  not  abide  iniquity 
with  festive  meeting."  Now,  after  reading  this  chapter,  turn 
to  the  fortieth:  "Comfort  ye,  comfort  ye,  my  people,  saith 
your  Lord !  Speak  to  the  heart  of  Jerusalem  and  cry  unto 
her  that  her  term  of  service  is  completed,  that  her  guilt  is 
pardoned,  that  she  hath  received  of  the  hand  of  Jehovah 
double  for  all  her  sins.  Hark  !  One  cries  in  the  wilderness : 
prepare  the  way  of  Jehovah,  level  in  the  desert  a  highway  for 
our  God.  Every  valley  shall  be  filled  up  and  every  mountain 
and  hill  brought  low,  and  the  steep  shall  be  made  level  and 
the  rough  country  a  valley.  And  the  glory  of  Jehovah  shall 
be  revealed,  and  all  flesh  shall  see  it,  for  the  mouth  of  Je- 
hovah has  spoken."  Now,  what  I  say  is:  Read  through 
this  whole  second  part.  Note  how  God  comforts  his  mourn- 
ing people,  promises  to  deliver  them,  speaks  to  Zion  as  deso- 
late and  forsaken,  a  captive  and  an  outcast,  promises  to 
bring  back  her  children,  to  rebuild  her  walls,  to  punish  her 
oppressors.  Read  this  and  you  will  feel  that  the  message 
could  have  come  with  appropriateness  to  the  people  in  the 
captivity  and  not  to  the  people  of  Isaiah's  time  whose  situa- 
tion was  so  different.  This  is  at  any  rate  the  conclusion  of  the 
majority  of  the  critics.  No  one  denies  the  genuineness  of  the 
prophecy;  no  one  denies  that  it  is  a  genuine  prophecy  that 
is,  and  this  being  admitted,  it  gains  in  force  and  beauty  on 
the  critical  theorv. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 


97 


Now,  if  we  admit  the  critical  conclusions  in  this  case,  the 
question  is  whether  they  affect  the  doctrine  of  inerrancy.  I 
do  not  see  that  they  do,  that  is  to  say,  they  do  not  show  the 
inaccuracy  of  any  statement  of  Scripture,  though  they  show 
the  inaccuracy  of  the  arrangement  of  Scripture.  I  pass  to  a 
more  serious  case.  As  you  are  well  aware,  the  book  of 
Psalms  is  generally  ascribed  to  David.  The  reason  is  that  a 
number  of  individual  Psalms  bear  his  name  in  the  title. 
Probably]  no  one  now  goes  to  the  length  of  some  of  the 
Rabbis  and  Fathers  in  supposing  that  David  wrote  the  whole 
book.  But  as  in  the  original  the  titles  form  a  part  of  the  text, 
there  has  been  a  strong  disposition  among  conservative  com- 
mentators to  vindicate  their  accuracy.  But  the  critical  con- 
clusion is  different  in  regard  to  a  number  of  them.  I  will 
adduce  only  one,  Psalm,  cxxxix,  which  is  ascribed  to  David 
both  in  the  Hebrew  and  in  the  Seventy.  But  only  a 
slight  knowledge  of  the  language  is  necessary  to  see  that  it 
is  entirely  different  in  style  from  any  other  Psalm  attributed 
to  David.  The  difference  is  not  of  a  kind  that  exists  between 
the  various  compositions  of  the  same  man.  The  language  is 
the  language  of  another  epoch.  If  you  were  to  find  a  poem 
of  Burns  published  in  Shakespeare's  works,  you  would  not 
suppose  it  Shakespeare's.  Shakespeare  is  versatile,  to  be 
sure.  He  could  vary  his  style  to  suit  any  exigency.  But 
you  know  he  never  wrote  like  Burns.  Now  this  is  not  an 
exaggerated  statement  of  the  case  with  this  Psalm.  I  have 
one  more  instance  under  this  head — the  book  of  Ecclesiastes. 
As  you  are  already  familiar  with  the  problem,  I  will  only  say 
that  the  posterilic  authorship  was  announced  by  Luther,  and  is 
accepted  by  as  orthodox  scholars  as  Delitzsch  and  Ginsburg. 
In  fact,  the  argument  is  as  strong  as  it  can  possibly  be  from 
style  and  vocabulary.  To  suppose  Solomon  the  author  of 
the  book,  is  about  like  supposing  Spenser  to  have  written  In 
Memoriam.  There  can  be  no  question  on  the  other  side 
that  the  author  assumes  the  character  of  Solomon.     So  th..t 


9b  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

we  have  a  clear  case  of  a  sacred  writer  writing  under  an  as- 
sumed name.  Many  Bible  students  see  nothing  improper  in 
an  inspired  writer  using  any  form  of  literature,  and  after 
Bunyan's  immortal  allegory,  fiction  would  seem  not  to  be  an 
unworthy  vehicle  of  spiritual  truth.  But  if  we  admit  this, 
then  the  theory,  that  every  statement  of  an  inspired  writer  is 
without  error  in  its  natural  and  legitimate  sense  can  not  be 
maintained. 

2.  For  my  second  class  of  facts,  I  will  ask  you  to  look  at 
the  historical  books  from  Joshua  to  Kings,  inclusive.  We 
have  here  a  series  of  books  which  give  a  connected  narrative 
for  the  period  from  the  conquest  of  Canaan  to  the  Exile.  Of 
course,  it  is  conceivable  that  such  a  narrative  should  be  made 
after  the  method  of  an  official  register.  Each  scribe  would 
add  to  the  book  a  sketch  of  his  own  time  and  pass  it  on  to 
his  successor.  It  has  been  supposed  by  some  that  the 
Hebrew  records  were  kept  in  this  way,  but  the  theory  is  with- 
out support  from  the  facts.  The  continuity  of  the  narrative 
from  Joshua  to  Zedekiah  has  been  secured  by  editing.  The 
method  of  the  redactor  is  quite  plain.  He  has  made  up  his 
story  by  extracts  from  already  existing  documents,  making 
very  little  change  of  himself,  but  inserting  an  occasional  note 
which  serves  to  make  the  connection  clear.  As  he  refers  us 
to  the  Chronicles  of  the  Kings  of  Judah  (or  Israel  as  the  case 
may  be),  it  is  clear  that  one  of  his  sources  was  an  extensive 
historical  work  bearing  this  title.  But  the  fact  of  compilation 
is  clear  in  other  places  than  those  in  which  he  mentions  his 
authority.  Take  for  example  the  book  of  Judges.  Chapter 
ii,  6,  reads:  "Now,  when  Joshua  had  sent  the  people 
away,  the  children  of  Israel  went  every  man  unto  his  in- 
heritance." Then  follows  the  mention  of  the  death  and 
burial  of  Joshua.  It  is  clear  that  this  was  originally  the  be- 
ginning of  the  book.  And  the  book  of  which  this  was  the 
beginning  extended  through  chapter  xvi.  It  was  strictly  a 
book  of  the  Judges.      Itself,  however,  was  a  compilation  as 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    ANT)    INSPIRATION.  OO 

is  evident  from  the  varying  character  of  its  parts.  This  book, 
after  it  was  finished,  received  two  supplements ;  one,  the  story  of 
Micah,  the  other,  of  the  war  against  Benjamin.  These  belong 
chronologically  at  the  beginning  of  the  book,  for  one  is 
dated  when  Jonathan,  the  son  of  Gershom,  and,  therefore, 
grandson  of  Moses,  was  still  a  young  man,  which  could  not 
have  been  long  after  the  death  of  Joshua.  In  the  other. 
Phinehas,  the  son  of  Eleazar,  the  son  of  .\aron,  is  High 
Priest,  and  this  must  have  been  about  the  same  time.  The 
book  received  also  a  preface,  giving  an  account  of  the 
gradual  conquest  of  the  land.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to 
one  section  only  of  this  preface.  It  is  i,  10-15,  ^"^  it  con- 
tains the  account  of  the  conquest  of  Hebron  by  Caleb.  The 
same  account  is  contained  in  Joshua,  xv,  13-19.  In  one 
case  Joshua  gave  Hebron  to  Caleb ;  in  the  other  the  children 
of  Judah  went  against  it  "  after  the  death  of  Joshua."  It  is 
clear  that  we  have  here  an  inaccuracy  in  one  of  the  narra- 
tives. The  difficulties  in  the  history  of  David  are  well  known. 
In  one  chapter  he  is  already  a  warrior  when  invited  to  the 
court  to  play  before  Saul.  Saul  loves  him  and  makes  him 
his  armor  bearer.  In  the  other  he  is  a  stripling  who  comes 
providentially  into  camp  in  time  to  meet  the  giant,  and  ap- 
pears to  be  wholly  unknown  to  Saul.  I  know  the  latter  ac- 
count is  not  in  the  Seventy  in  the  earliest  form  of  that  version. 
But  this  only  shows  the  extreme  freedom  with  which  the  tc\t 
was  treated  at  a  very  late  date,  and  even  leaving  out  the  j)art 
not  in  the  Seventy,  we  still  have  serious  discrepancies. 

It  is  not  to  emphasize  these  discrepancies  that  I  call  atten- 
tion to  these  facts  at  this  point,  but  to  show  the  extreme  diffi- 
culty of  applying  the  theory  of  inerrancy  to  documents  of 
this  kind.  The  theory  is  that  "all  affirmations  of  Scripture 
of  all  kinds  are  without  any  error."  Now,  what  are  "the 
affirmations  of  Scripture  "  in  the  cases  we  have  been  consid- 
ering? The  theologians  are  careful  to  tell  us  that  inerrancy 
does  not  guarantee  the  truthfulness  of  the  words  of  Satan  in 


lOO  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

Gen  iii,  or  of  the  speeches  of  Job's  friends  in  their  argument 
with  him. 

What  shall  we  say  of  the  books  we  have  been  discussing? 
Where  is  the  point  of  inerrancy  ?  Is  it  in  the  originals  from 
which  the  narrative  has  been  cempiled  ?  Is  it  in  the  arrange- 
ment ?  Is  it  in  the  notes  of  the  redactor  ?  Or  is  it  in  all 
these  ?  Some  of  the  advocates  of  inerrancy  have  declined  to 
postulate  inerrant  transmission,  because  it  would  call  for  a 
standing  miracle.  The  continuous  influence  which  would  se- 
cure original  inerrancy  for  all  the  documents  would  be  just 
such  a  standing  miracle.  The  Song  of  Deborah  was  com- 
posed, let  us  say,  1300  years  B.  C.  The  final  touches  to  the 
books  we  are  considering  were  given  not  earlier  than  the  Ex- 
ile, which  began  about  600  B.  C.  The  materials  which  are 
now  in  our  historical  books,  therefore,  were  composed  during 
a  period  of  seven  hundred  years.  Was  there  a  standing 
miracle  during  all  this  time  ?  Or  shall  we  assume  that  the 
final  redactor  received  the  gift  of  inerrancy,  so  that  he 
changed  the  language  of  his  sources  so  as  to  leave  no  inaccu- 
racies? Of,. this,  again,  there  is  no  evidence.  For,  arguing 
on  the  basis  of  individual  style,  we  discover  that  the  redactor 
has  generally  left  unaltered  the  documents  he  has  embodied 
in  his  narrative.  His  supervision  has  generally  gone  only  so 
far  as  to  make  an  occasional  note  or  insert  a  connecting 
phrase.  Or  does  his  inerrancy  extend  simply  to  the  reproduc- 
tion, so  that  our  confidence  extends  only  to  the  accuracy  of  his 
quotation  ?  This,  indeed,  is  what  the  critics  generally  accept. 
But  it  is  far  from  what  the  advocates  of  inerrancy  claim. 
Unless  we  can  assume  the  standing  miracle,  the  historical 
sources  of  the  Old  Testament  need,  in  order  to  discover  the 
truth  of  events,  the  same  sort  of  analysis,  sifting,  and  cross- 
questioning  that  must  be  given  to  other  sources  of  history. 
And  this  analysis,  sifting,, and  cross-questioning  is  precisely — 
higher  criticism. 

Before  we  leave  this  point,  let  us  look  at  another  phase  of 


niBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRAMON  lOI 

it.  Several  books  of  the  Old  Testament— notably  the 
Psahus,  Proverbs,  Job,  and  Ecclesiastes— labor  under  the 
same  difficulty  of  discovering  where  the  statements  of  the 
author  are — those  statements  which  are  free  from  error. 
Take  the  book  of  Job,  for  example.  It  presents  us  the 
picture  of  a  grand  trial.  The  pious  sufferer  has  to  contend 
with  fears  within  as  well  as  fightings  without.  It  is  not  only 
the  speeches  of  his  friends  which  contain  error,  Job  him- 
self loses  sight  of  God.  He  doubts  His  justice  and  His  love. 
The  author  does  not  make  his  own  opinion  heard.  He  lets 
the  situation  speak  to  us.  The  value  of  the  book  lies  not  in 
any  assertion  even  of  God  Himself — sublime  as  is  the  truth 
He  speaks.  No  ;  the  value  of  the  book  of  Job  lies  in  the 
spectacle  of  a  human  soul  in  the  direst  affliction  working 
through  its  doubts  and  at  last  humbly  confessing  its  weakness 
and  sinfulness  in  the  presence  of  its  Maker.  The  inerrancy 
is  in  the  truth  of  the  picture  presented.  It  can  not  be  located 
in  any  statement  of  the  author  or  of  any  of  his  characters. 
The  same  is  true  of  the  Psalms.  They  present  us  a  picture 
of  pious  experience  in  all  its  phases.  We  see  every  variety 
of  soul  in  every  variety  of  emotion.  The  assertions  of  the 
authors  can  not  be  taken  for  absolute  truth.  Nor  can  the 
authors,  though  doubtless  all  w^ere  sincere  believers  in  God, 
be  taken  as  sinless  models  for  the  Christian.  Only  Christ  is 
that.  The  Psalms  present  us  a  record  of  actur.l  experience 
of  believers  in  the  past.  We  can  study  and  profit  by  this 
experience  all  the  more  that  it  has  in  it  human  weakness. 
The  subjects  of  the  experience  doubtless  had  the  power  of 
correctly  expressing  their  feelings,  but  that  is  not  the  iner- 
rancy which  has  been  claimed  for  them,  and  which  the  theo- 
logians desire.  The  imprecations  which  have  been  such  a 
stumbling  block  to  some  are  enough  to  prove  this  point. 

3.  So  far  we  have  noticed  the  difficulty  of  applying  the 
theory  of  inerrancy.  We  are  in  a  position,  however,  to  go 
further.     We  have,  as  you  know,  two  parallel  histories  in  the 


I02  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

Old  Testament.  One  is  contained  in  the  books  from  Genesis 
to  II  Kings ;  the  other  is  contained  in  the  books  of  Chronicles. 
These  latter,  indeed,  once  were  joined  with  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah,  so  as  to  form  a  continuous  narrative  (if  narrative  it  may- 
be called,  where  so  much  is  simply  genealogical)  from  Adam 
to  the  Persian  monarchy.  But  this  does  not  now  concern  us. 
For  our  present  inquiry,  we  are  interested  in  the  two  forms  of 
the  history  oi  Israel  as  presented  on  the  one  side  in  the  books 
of  Samuel  and  Kings  and  on  the  other  in  the  books  of  Chroni- 
cles. The  study  of  these  books  shows  the  method  of  the  au- 
thors with  a  definiteness  which  leaves  nothing  to  be  desired. 
We  see  that  the  Chronicler  had  before  him  our  book  of  Kings  as 
one  of  his  sources.  He  takes  from  it  what  suits  his  purpose. 
What  he  takes  he  generally  transfers  without  material  change. 
He  omits  a  good  deal  which  does  not  answer  his  purpose, 
and  he  inserts  a  good  deal  from  other  sources.  He  pursues 
exactly  the  plan  that  is,  which  we  suppose  to  have  been  fol- 
lowed by  the  other  historical  writers.  Now  compare  the  fol- 
lowing passages : 

II  Sam.  viii:  4.     And  David  took  I  Chron.   xviii  :  3.      And   David 

from  him  1,700  horsemen  and  20,-  took  from  him  1,000  chariots,  and 

ODD  footmen.  7,000  horsemen,  and  20,000  foot- 
men. 

x:  16.  The  children  of  Ammon  xxix  :  6.    Hanun  and  the  children 

sent  and  hired  the  Syrians  of  Beth  of    Ammon   sent    1,000    talents  of 

Rehob  and  the  Syrians  of  Zobah  silver  to  hire    them    chariots  and 

20,000  footmen,   and   the  King^of  horsemen.      So    they    hired    them 

Maacah  with  1,000  men,  and  the  32,000  chariots  and  the    King  of 

men  of  Tob  1,200  men.  Maacah  and  his  men. 

x:  18.  David    destroyed  of    the  xix:  18.   David  destroyed  of  the 

Syrians  700  chariots.  Syrians  7,000  chariots. 

xxiv:9.  There    were    in    Israel  xxi :  5.  There  were  of  all  Israel 

800,000    valiant    men    who    drew  1,100,000    that    drew    sword    and 

sword,  and  the  men  of  Judah  were  Judah    was     470,000    that     d 


rew 


500,000. 


sword. 


xxxiv:  24.   So  David  bought   the  xxi:   25.    So   David  gave  to  Or- 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 


'03 


threshing  floor   and    the   oxen   for  nan   for  the    place    600  shekels  of 

50  shekels  in  silver.  gold  by  weight. 

I  Kings,  iv:  26.     And  Solomon  IT  Chron.  ix  :  25.  And  Solomon 

had  40,000  stalls  for  horses.  had  4,000  stalls  for  horses  and 
chariots. 

xvi:2.   The  height  [of  the  house]  iii :  4.   The  height  [of  the  porch) 

30  cubits.  120  cubits. 

vii :  26.   It  [the  brazen   sea]  held  iv:  5.   It  received  and  licld  J.'xx) 

2,000  baths.  baths. 

Now,  it  will  be  said  at  once  that  these  are  all  discrepancies 
in  numbers  which  are  very  liable  to  corruption,  and  that, 
therefore,  these  are  all  cases  of  error  in  transmission.  But  I 
ask  you  to  notice  that  these  are  all  but  one,  cases  in  which  the 
larger  number  is  in  the  text  of  the  Chronicler.  Where  the 
age  of  a  king  or  the  length  of  his  reign  is  concerned  I  have 
not  taken  account  of  the  difference.  But  in  matters  of  sta- 
tistics it  is  curious  that  the  errors  should  be  nearly  all  one 
way.  Remembering  that  the  Chronicler  was  much  further 
away  in  time  from  the  events  narrated,  we  find  it  natural  that 
he  should  have  an  exaggerated  idea  of  the  resources  of  his 
country  in  the  days  of  her  glory.  In  the  case  of  David's 
purchase  of  the  field  of  Oman,  he  finds  the  price  a  niggardly 
one  for  a  prince  to  pay.  He,  therefore,  does  not  hesitate 
(supposing  that  a  mistake  has  been  made)  to  put  in  a  larger 
sum.  Of  course,  we  need  not  lay  this  to  the  charge  of  the 
final  redactor  of  the  book.  He  had  probably  before  him  other 
written  elaborations  of  the  history  in  which  his  exaggerated 
idea  of  the  past  was  already  embodied.  The  personal  equation 
is  as  difficult  to  suppress  in  the  historian  as  is  individuality  of 
style.  Why  should  one  be  overruled  any  more  than  the  other  ? 
The  Chronicler  lived  in  a  time  when  the  Mosaic  Law  had 
taken  substantially  the  position  we  find  it  occupying  in 
the  New  Testament  times.  Piety  was  to  him  the  observance 
of  this  law.  He  looked  back  through  this  medium  to  David 
and  Solomon  and  the  good  kings  of  their  line.      He  had  lost 


I04  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

all  interest  in  the  Israel  of  the  Ten  Tribes,  because  they  had 
disappeared  from  his  vision  or  lived  only  in  the  heretical 
Samaritans  of  his  time.  Now,  we  all  know  how  difficult  it 
is  to  picture  to  ourselves  a  different  piety  from  our  own. 
Abraham,  the  Father  of  the  Faithful,  we  picture  to  ourselves 
as  an  enlightened  Christian  of  the  nineteenth  century.  We 
do  not  like  to  confess  that  he  was  guilty  of  deception,  or  that 
Jacob,  the  Prince  of  God,  took  an  unfair  advantage  of  his 
own  brother.  So  with  the  Chronicler.  He  could  think  of 
David  only  as  a  saint  of  his  own  pattern.  Therefore,  he 
does  not  copy  from  the  older  history  the  shadows  that  rest 
upon  David's  life.  His  adultery,  the  trouble  with  Amnon,  the 
usurpation  of  Absalom  and  of  Adonijah,  the  charge  of  ven- 
geance delivered  to  Solomon — these  are  left  out  of  his  history 
altogether.  To  him  David  is  the  nursing  father  of  the  legiti- 
mate priesthood  and  the  virtual  builder  of  the  Temple.  But 
you  will  say  this  does  not  give  us  error  in  the  record.  Let 
me,  then,  call  attention  to  the  following  : 

I  Kings  ix :   ii.     Solomon  gave         II    Chron.   viii :   2.     The    cities 

Hiram  30  cities  in  the  land  of  Gal-     which  Hiram  gave  Solomon,  Solo- 

ilee.  mon    built    them    and    caused   the 

children  of  Israel  to  dwell  there. 

XV :    14.       But    the    high    places         II  Chron.  xiv  :  3.      For  he   took 

w^ere  not  taken  away.     Neverthe-     away   the    strange    altars    and  the 

less,  the  heart  of  Asa  was  perfect     high  places    (cf.    v:    5:      Also    he 

with  the  Lord  all  his  days.  took  away  out  of  all   the  cities  of 

Judah  the  high  places). 

These  certainly  look  on  their  face  like  direct'contradictions, 
and  if  we  allow  for  the  personal  equation  of  which  I  have 
spoken  we  can  easily  explain  them.  It  would  be  hard  in- 
deed for  a  Jew  of  the  Persian  period  to  imagine  Solomon  giv- 
ing  away  the  sacred  territory  of  Israel  to  the  heathen  king. 
Rather  must  he  suppose  the  mighty  Solomon  to  be  the  re- 
cipient of  gifts  of  territory.     The  same  line  of  reasoning  is 


BIBLICAL    SCHOt.ARSHII'    AND    INSPIRATION. 


105 


followed  in  the  second  quotation.  The  high  places  were  the 
old  sanctuaries  of  Jehovah,  regarded  as  legitimate  before  the 
building  of  the  Temple  even  by  the  author  of  the  book  of 
Kings  (i  Kings  iii :  2),  and  used  without  reserve  by  Samuel. 
As  time  went  on  they  fell  more  and  more  into  disrepute,  and 
after  the  Exile  the  requirements  of  the  Law  were  carried  out, 
and  the  only  sanctuary  of  the  people  was  the  temple  at  Jeru- 
salem. The  remembrance  of  the  high  places  was  only  that 
of  illegitimate  places  of  worship.  The  Chronicler  and  his 
generation  could  not  imagine  a  good  king  as  even  tolerating 
them.  Hence  the  change  in  his  account.  Allow  me  to  call 
your  attention  to  one  more  instance.  If  you  will  compare 
the  two  accounts  of  the  coronation  of  the  young  King  Jeho- 
ash,  which  are  found  in  2  Kings  xi:  4-16,  and  2  Chron.  xxiii: 
1-15,  you  will  be  struck  by  some  remarkable  differences.  As 
you  will  remember,  the  Queen  Mother  had,  on  the  death  of 
Ahaziah,  slain  all  the  male  members  of  the  royal  family  except 
the  infant  Jehoash,  and  had  herself  seized  the  kingdom.  The 
young  prince  who  escaped  the  massacre  was  kept  in  conceal- 
ment until  his  seventh  year,  when,  by  the  efforts  of  Jehoiada, 
the  High  Priest,  he  was  seated  upon  the  throne,  and  the 
usurping  queen  was  slain.  The  account  in  the  book  of  Kings 
is  as  follows : 

"And  in  the  seventh  year  Jehoiada  sent  and  fetched  the 
captains  over  hundreds  of  the  Carites  and  of  the  Runners 
and  brought  them  to  the  House  of  Jehovah  and  made  a 
covenant  with  them  and  made  them  take  an  oath  and. 
showed  them  the  king's  son.  And  he  commanded  them 
saying:  This  is  the  thing  ye  shall  do.  The  third  |)art 
of  you  that  come  in  on  the  Sabbath  and  keep  the  guard 
of  the  palace  .  .  .  and  the  two  parts  of  you  that  go 
forth  on  the  Sabbath  and  keep  the  guard  of  the  Hou.se  of 
Jehovah  [shall  come]  unto  the  king.  And  ye  shall  surround 
the  king  each  with  his  weapons  in  his  hand,  and  he  that  comes 
within  the  ranks  shall  be   put  to  death,  and  yc  shall  be  with 


I06  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

the  king  when  he  goes  out  and  when  he  comes  in.  And  the 
captains  of  hundreds  did  according  to  all  that  Jehoiada  the 
Priest  commanded  them.  And  they  took  each  his  men — 
those  coming  in  on  the  Sabbath  with  those  going  out  on  the 
Sabbath  and  came  to  Jehoiada  the  Priest  (and  the  Priest  gave 
them  David's  armor  of  state)  and  the  Runners  stood  each 
with  his  weapons  in  his  hand  from  the  south  side  of  the  House 
to  the  north  side  of  the  House  about  the  House  and  the  altar, 
round  about  the  king.  And  he  brought  out  the  king  and 
placed  upon  him  the  diadem  and  the  testimony  and  made 
him  king  and  anointed  him.  And  they  clapped  their  hands 
and  said:  Long  live  the  king!" 

The  history  here  is  so  plain  there  can  be  no  mistaking. 
The  principal  actors  are  the  officers  of  the  body-guard  with 
their  men.  This  body  of  soldiers  is  divided,  as  was  the  case 
also  in  David's  time,  into  three  companies.  These  take  their 
turn  in  guarding  the  Temple  and  the  palace,  one-third  being 
on  duty  at  one  point  and  two-thirds  at  the  other.  The  Sab- 
bath is  the  day  when  they  exchange  one  post  for  the  other, 
and  it  is  probable  that  on  that  day,  when  the  multitude  at  the 
temple  is  larger,  two  companies  are  on  duty  there  and  only  one 
company  at  the  palace,  while  during  the  week  the  reverse  is  the 
case.  Jehoiada,  after  showing  the  three  centurions  that  the 
rightful  heir  to  the  throne  is  still  alive,  agrees  that  the  company 
on 'duty  at  the  temple,  instead  of  going  down  to  the  palace, 
shall  remain.  When  the  other  two  companies  come  up  from 
the  palace,  therefore,  the  whole  body-guard  will  be  around  the 
young  king,  and  Athaliah  will  be  left  without  soldiers.  The 
plan  is  carried  out,  and  Athaliah,  hearing  the  noise,  comes  un- 
attended to  the  temple,  because  she  has  no  soldiers  at  her  com- 
mand. This  account,  then,  makes  the  matter  the  business 
of  the  body-guard,  with  which  (except  the  High  Priest)  priests 
and  people  have  nothing  to  do.  How  now  does  the  Chron- 
icler see  the  incident?  In  his  account  the  Carites  and  Run- 
ners disappear.     Jehoiada  counsels  indeed  with  certain  cap- 


niBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSI'IRATION.  107 

tains  of  hundreds,  but  who  they  are  does  not  distinctly 
appear.  Instead  of  collecting  troops,  they  go  about  the 
country  and  gather  all  the  Levites  and  the  heads  of  fathers' 
houses.  It  is  a  matter  in  which  the  whole  people  therefore 
take  part.     The  account  goes  on : 

"And  all  the  congregation  made  a  covenant  with  the  king 
in  the  house  of  God.  And  he  said  unto  them  :  Behold  the 
king's  son  shall  reign  as  Jehovah  hath  spoken  concerning  the 
sons  of  David.  This  is  the  thing  which  ye  shall  do.  The 
third  part  of  you  that  come  in  on  the  Sabbath  of  the  Priests 
and  of  the  Levites  shall  be  at  the  outer  gates.  And  a  third  of 
you  shall  be  in  the  palace,  and  a  third  part  in  the  gate  Jesod, 
and  all  the  people  shall  be  in  the  courts  of  the  house  of  Jehovah. 
But  let  them  not  come  mto  the  House  except  the  priests  and 
those  ministering  to  the  Levites — they  may  come  in  because 
they  are  holy;  and  let  all  the  people  keep  the  guard  of  Je- 
hovah. And  let  the  Levites  surround  the  king  each  with  his 
weapons  in  his  hands,  and  he  that  cometh  into  the  house  shall 
be  put  to  death,  and  let  them  be  with  the  king  when  he  com- 
eth in  and  when  he  goeth  out.  And  the  Invites  and  all  Judah 
did  according  to  all  that  Jehoiada  the  Priest  commanded." 

Now  it  is  perfectly  clear  that  there  is  a  discrepancy  in  the 
two  accounts.  In  one  the  main  (in  fact  the  only)  actors  be- 
sides Jehoiada  are  the  royal  guard.  They  come  into  the 
temple,  they  surround  the  king,  they  guard  him  and  pro- 
claim him  king,  and  they  kill  Athaliah.  In  the  other  account 
the  body-guard  is  not  even  mentioned.  The  captains  of  hun-. 
dreds  seem  to  be  Levitical  chiefs.  They  gather  the  Levites 
from  the  whole  country.  These  do  exactly  what  in  the  other 
account  is  attributed  to  the  mercenaries.  Yet  in  spite  of  the 
conspiracy  being  known  to  all  the  Levites  and  all  Judah, 
Athaliah  has  no  inkling  of  it  and  comes  unattended  into  the 
temple.  The  account  in  Kings  is  the  original,  and  the  devi- 
ations are  due  to  the  point  of  view  of  the  Chronicler.  In 
the  time  before  the  exile,  as  we  know  from  various  sources, 


Io8  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

there  was  no  scruple  (in  practice  at  least)  against  the  entrance 
of  foreigners  into  the  temple.  Ezekiel  distinctly  denounces 
this  as  one  of  the  customs  of  the  time  before  the  captivity, 
"  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  :  O  ye  house  of  Israel,  let  it  suf- 
fice you  of  all  your  abominations  in  that  ye  have  brought  in 
aliens  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh  to  be 
in  my  sanctuary  to  profane  it  when  ye  offer  my  bread,  the 
fat  and  the  blood."  The  earlier  kings,  therefore,  had  guarded 
the  temple  with  their  own  troops.  But  the  stringency  with 
which  the  later  Jews  guarded  the  temple  from  profanation 
made  the  Chronicler  unable  to  realize  this.  Especially  that  a 
High  Priest  should  have  called  upon  the  royal  troops  for  serv- 
ice in  the  temple  seemed  to  him  incredible.  He  supposed 
the  Levites  must  have  been  called  upon  for  this  service,  and 
hence  he  substituted  them  in  the  text.'  It  is  clear  that  we 
can  not  ascribe  freedom  from  error  to  the  statements  of  a 
book  compiled  in  this  way.  You  will  say  then  it  should  be 
cast  out  of  the  Canon.  To  which  I  reply,  by  no  means. 
The  book  of  Chronicles  is  invaluable  to  us  not  for  what  it 
directly  teaches,  but  for  the  light  it  throws  indirectly  upon  its 
own  time.  What  the  Jews  of  the  Persian  monarchy  were 
thinking,  how  they  regarded  the  older  history,  how  they  were 
preparing  the  way  for  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  for  the  cruci- 
fixion and  the  Roman  war,  for  the  Talmud  and  Barkochba — - 


1  As  some  questions  have  been  raised  by  my  assertions  about  the 
Chronicler,  I  will  add  that  of  course  I  do  not  suppose  him  guilty  of 
intentional  falsification  of  the  record.  He  had  before  him,  it  would 
appear,  a  considerable  literature  which  had  commented  on  the  history 
in  the  spirit  of  the  time — his  changes  are  made  from  these  documents. 
The  ideas  which  govern  this  literature  were  a  part  of  the  mental  furni- 
ture of  the  Chronicler  himself.  His  inspiration,  which  made  him 
a  source  of  religious  edification  to  his  contemporaries,  and  which 
makes  his  work  still  a  part  of  the  infallible  rule  of  faith,  did  vot  correct 
his  historical  point  of  view  any  more  than  it  corrected  liis  scientific  point 
of  view,  which  no  doubt  made  the  earth  the  center  of  the  solar  system. 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSIIRAI  ION.  109 

tnis  is  made  known  to  us  in  the  book  of  Chronicles  and  by 
almost  no  other  book  of  the  Bible.  But  it  is  made  known  to 
us  by  reading  between  the  lines ;  that  is  to  say,  by  consider- 
ing and  weighing  not  what  the  author  says  of  others,  but  by 
what  he  betrays  of  himself.  What  is  the  truth  of  history, 
my  friends?  Is  it  simply  the  narrative  of  events  definitely 
defined,  and  labeled,  and  arranged  in  order  ?  Is  it  a  cata- 
logue of  kings,  of  each  of  which  it  records  that  he  was 
born  and  made  war  and  died?  Is  it  not  rather  a 
series  of  pictures  each  of  which  describes  an  age  with  its 
thoughts,  its  aspirations,  its  ideals?  If  so,  sacred  history  can 
not  be  made  up  by  a  string  of  inerrant  statements.  It  must 
show  unconsciously  and  by  suggestion  the  spirit  that  informs 
the  church  of  God  and  makes  it  live  and  grow.  To  secure 
us  an  inerrant  chronicle  of  dates  and  names  would  not  give 
us  this  history.  To  give  us  the  pictures  of  the  men  drawn 
by  themselves  is  to  give  us  this  history.  To  discover  these 
pictures,  and  to  locate  them,  and  set  them  in  their  true  light, 
is  the  work  of  Biblical  Theology  working  by  criticism. 

And  now  I  must  be  prepared  to  hear  an  objection  urged 
against  the  view  here  presented.  If  we  can  not  trust  the 
Bible  to  be  accurate  in  minor  details  we  can  not  trust  it  in 
any  thing.  If  we  must  give  up  one  we  must  give  up  all.  In 
reply  to  this  I  say,  first,  that  a  very  large  number  of  able 
and  evangelical  theologians  do  not  admit  this.  Many  of 
those  who  hold  the  most  rigid  theory  of  inspiration  say  ex- 
pressly that  the  admission  of  chronological  or  historic  a!  er- 
rors  would  not  invalidate  the  infallible  authority  of  the  Bible. 
To  substantiate  this  let  me  name  Richard  Baxter  who  for 
himself  says  that  he  believes  all  errors  now  in  the  text  to 
have  come  in  by  transmission.  I  quote  from  the  "Reasons 
for  the  Christian  Religion  "  the  following  : 

"  But  those  men  who  think  that  these  human  imperfections 
of  the  writers  do  extend  further,  and  may  a]. pear  in  some  by- 
passages  of  chronologies  or  history  which  are  no  part  of  the 


no  BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP   AND    INSPIRATION. 

rule  of  faith  and  life,  do  not  hereby  destroy  the  Christian 
cause.  For  God  might  enable  his  apostles  to  an  infallible 
recording  and  preaching  of  the  Gospel,  even  all  things  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  though  he  had  not  made  them  infallible  in 
every  by-passage  and  circumstances  any  more  than  they  were 
indefectible  in  life.  As  for  them  that  say,  '  I  can  believe  no 
man  in  any  thing  who  is  mistaken  in  one  thing,  at  least,  as 
infallible,  they  speak  against  common  sense  and  reason;  for 
a  man  may  be  infallibly  acquainted  with  some  things  who  is 
not  so  in  all.  A  historian  may  infallibly  acquaint  me  that 
there  was  a  fight  at  Lepanto,  .  .  .  who  can  not  tell  me 
all  the  circumstances  of  it.  .  .  .  I  do  not  believe  that 
any  man  can  prove  the  least  error  in  the  holy  Scripture  in 
any  point  according  to  its  true  intent  and  meaning ;  but  if  he 
could,  the  Gospel,  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  life  in  things  neces- 
sary to  salvation,  might  be,  nevertheless,  proved  infallible  by 
all  the  evidences  before  given."  ^  Without  investigating  a 
large  number  of  theologians  who  are  quoted  ^  as  making  sim- 
lar  concessions,  I  will  only  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Christian  Apologetics  declares  that  the  great  things  of  Script- 
ure can  be  proved  without  assuming  the  inerrancy  of  the  rec- 
ord at  all.  President  Patton,  of  Princeton,  holds  this  view, 
as  is  well  known.  "  I  must  take  exception  to  the  disposition 
on  the  part  of  some  (he  says)  to  stake  the  fortunes  of  Chris- 
tianity on  the  doctrine  of  inspiration.     Not  that  I  yield  to 


*  The  Practical  Works  of  the  Rev.  Richard  Baxter,  London,  1830, 
Vol.  XXI,  p.  349. 

'  The  author  of  the  article,  Inspiration,  in  McClintock  and  Strong's 
Cyclopaedia,  says :  "Others  have  gone  so  far  as  to  avow  that  the  value 
of  the  religious  element  in  the  revelation  would  not  be  lessened  if  er- 
rors were  acknowledged  in  the  scientific  and  miscellaneous  matter 
which  accompanies  it.  Among  those  who  have  held  this  form  of  the 
theory  are  Baxter,  Tillotson,  Doddridge,  Warburton ;  Bishops  Horsley, 
Randolph,  and  Whately,  Hampden,  Thirlwall,  Bishop  Heber,  Dr. 
Pye  Smith,  Thomas  Scott,  and  Dean  Alford." 


BIBLICAL   SCHOLARSHIP   AND    INSI'IRATION.  m 

any  one  in  profound  conviction  of  the  truih  and  importance 
of  the  doctrine.  But  it  is  proper  for  us  to  bear  in  mind  the 
immense  argumentative  advantage  which  Christianity  has 
aside  altogether  from  the  inspiration  of  the  documents  on 
which  it  rests.'"  According  to  President  Patton,  then,  so  far 
from  its  being  true  that,  unless  the  Bible  be  inerrant  in  every 
detail,  we  must  give  up  its  testimony  to  the  matters  of  greater 
weight — so  far  from  this  being  true,  we  might  give  up  the  in- 
spiration altogether,  and  still  have  the  assurance  of  these 
greater  matters. 

But,  when  a  thing  is  said  to  be  unthinkable,  the  best  way 
to  answer  the  assertion  is  to  show  that  it  has  been  thought. 
Some  say  they  can  not  conceive  a  Bible  that  can  be  relied  on 
in  matters  of  faith  and  morals,  without  making  it  infallibly 
true  on  points  of  chronology,  history,  and  natural  science. 
To  this  I  reply :  Many  men  have  received  the  Bible,  and  do 
receive  the  Bible,  as  their  infallible  authority  who  do  not 
actually  attribute  to  it,  and  who  have  not  actually  attributed 
to  it,  inerrancy  in  minor  matters.  This  is  true,  as  I  have  al- 
ready said,  of  the  Reformers.  It  is  dangerous  to  cite  a  Ger- 
man in  this  connection.  But  the  time  was  when  Tholuck 
was  honored  in  America  as  a  defender  of  the  faith.  Tholu<  k 
declared  himself  decidedly*  against  the  absolute  inerrancy 
of  Scripture.  Among  living  theologians,  Luthardt  has  earned 
the  gratitude  of  the  Protestant  Church  at  large  by  his  fruitful 
labors  in  varied  fields  of  research.  Luthardt  declares  that 
the  older  theology  "certainly  went  too  far."  Van  Oo.sterzee" 
was,  during  his  life,  the  representative  of  the  Orthodox  party 

'  Patton,  The  Inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  p.  22. 

*  In  the  article  cited  above.  I  might  add  here  that  amor{j  those  who 
do  not  assert  inerrancy,  "but  limit  inspiration  to  such  matters  as  di- 
rectly pertain  to  the  proper  material  of  revelation,  ;.  e.,  to  strictly  re- 
ligious truth,"  are  to  be  found  (accordini,'  to  McClintock  and  Slrong) 
John  Howe,  Bishop  Williams,  Burnet,  Lowth,  Bishop  Watson,  Law, 
Barrow,  Conybeare,  Bloomfield,  and  others. 


112  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

in  the  Reformed  church  of  Holland,  yet  he  declares  that 
' '  errors  and  inaccuracies  in  matters  of  subordinate  import- 
once  are  undoubtedly  to  be  found  in  the  Bible.  A  Luther, 
a  Calvin,  a  Coccejus,  among  the  older  theologians;  aTholuck, 
a  Neander,  a  Lange,  a  Stier,  among  the  more  modern  ones, 
have  admitted  this  without  hesitation."'  And  in  our  own 
country  there  has  recently  been  published  a  book,  by  a  care- 
ful investigator,  which,  while  an  able  defense  of  "Super- 
natural Revelation,"  declines  to  assert  inerrancy.'^  The 
author  says:  "As  to  the  meaning  of  deo-vzoazo^  [in  i  Tim. 
iii :  i6],  there  is  not,  and  can  not  be  any  material  difference 
of  opinion.  The  chief  difference  relates  rather  to  the  object 
and  degree  of  inspiration,  whether  it  is  the  writings  or  the 
writers  that  are  inspired ;  and  whether  the  inspiration  secures 
absolute  infallibility  or  not.  From  the  word  itself,  however,  as 
Ellicott,  Warrington,  and  others  properly  insist,  we  can  not 
infer  a  verbal  inspiration,  such  as  the  older  theologians 
taught"  (p.  299,  sq.;  the  italics  are  mine).  Again,  after  de- 
fining the  "deliverance  of  the  Christian  judgment  in  favor 
of  the  general  and  special  trustworthiness  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  its  descriptions  [note  1]  of  Christ  and  the  Christian 
revelation,"  the  author  goes  on  to  say:  "Does  this  mean 
now  that  every  thing,  without  exception,  that  is  found  in  the 
Scripture  is  to  be  accepted  as  absolute,  unadulterated  truth? 
Is  all  critical  inquiry  into  the  historical  and  scientific  accuracy 
or  logical  soundness  of  Biblical  utterances  to  be  cut  off?  By 
no  means.  The  Bible  was  written  by  imperfect  and  fallible 
men;  and   it  is   only  by  the   use  of  the  rational  and  critical 


1  Van  Oosterzee,  Christian  Dogmatics,  I,  p.  205.  It  is  worth  noting 
that  the  latest  defense  of  inerrancy  comes  from  Germany,  by  Rohnert, 
noticed  in  the  Independent,  of  March  5,  1891. 

*  Supernatural  Revelation,  an  Essay  concerning  the  basis  of  the 
Christian  Faith,  by  C.  M.  Mead,  Lectures  on  the  L.  P.  Stone  Founda- 
tion, delivered  at  Princeton  Theological  Seminary. 


WinJCAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION'.  113 

judgment  that  Christians  have  come  to  regard  it  of  ex<_c|>- 
tional  trustworthiness. 

"If  the  same  method  of  examination  should  reveal  occasional 
instances  of  discrepancy  and  error,  this  would  k  nothing  more 
than  what  might  be  expected,  unless  it  has  been  demonstrated 
that  the  writers  were  so  inspired  as  to  make  them  absolutely  in- 
falliblt.  But  no  such  demonstration  has  ever  been  made  " 
(P-  Zh''  sq-)- 

But  if  you  still  feel  that  the  concession  of  minor  errors  en- 
dangers the  spiritual  truth,  let  me  ask  you  to  notice  the  sim- 
ilar line  of  argument  that  might  have  been  followed  in  the 
past,  but  which  has  not  actually  resulted  in  the  overthrow  of 
the  Scriptures  or  of  the  Church. 

Suppose  an  inquirer  comes  to  you  with  the  question  how 
you  know  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha  not  to  be  part  of 
the  Bible.  You  explain  to  him  the  history  of  the  Jewish 
Canon  and  the  testimony  of  the  New  Testament.  He  asks, 
"has  the  Church  not  actually  accepted  these  books  as 
Scripture  at  some  periods  of  its  history,  and  have  not  some 
eminent  theologians  used  them  as  the  Word  of  God?''  You 
will  be  compelled  to  answer  in  the  affirmative.  If,  now, 
your  inquirer  says,  "  well,  if  God  can  not  guarantee  his 
Word  so  that  His  Church  can  tell  exactly  what  it  is,  then  I 
can  not  be  sure  that  any  of  it  is  His,"  how  will  you  answer 
him  ?  Surely  you  would  not  admit  that  this  uncertainty,  even 
in  a  matter  of  such  importance  as  the  extent  of  the  Canon, 
invalidates  the  Bible. 

Or  if  a  Bible  student  comes  to  you  with  the  Revised  Yer- 
sion  and  complains  that  the  Bible  has  been  mutilated  by  the 
omission  of  the  passage  concerning  "  three  that  bear  witness 
in  heaven,"  what  will  you  do?  You  will  explain  the  process 
of  transmission  by  manuscript.  You  will  tell  him  that  the 
verse  is  no  part  of  the  original  Scripture,  but  has  crept  mto 
some  copies  by  mistake.  If  now  he  says,  "  if  God  ran  not 
secure  his  Word  from  errors  of  copyists,  I  can  not  rely  ui)on 


114  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

any  part  of  it,"  what  will  you  say?  You  will  not  admit  this 
argument  either,  though  it  is  precisely  your  own  in  case  of 
admitted  historical  errors. 

But,  again,  if  one  inquire  why  the  Revised  Version  gives 
so  many  marginal  renderings,  some  quite  different  from  the 
text,  you  may  be  compelled  to  explain  to  him  that  the 
Hebrew  is  in  some  respects  an  imperfect  language;  that  it 
has  but  two  tenses  for  example,  so  that  the  time  of  an  action 
is  often  difficult  to  define  as  exactly  as  we  should  like;  that, 
moreover,  the  Hebrew  script  was  at  first  very  defective,  and 
though  it  has  been  admirably  supplemented  by  the  system  of 
points,  yet  there  is  reason  to  think  the  points  sometimes  in 
the  wrong.  After  all  this,  he  might  take  your  line  of  argu- 
ment and  say  :  "  If  God  could  not  express  this  revelation 
more  accurately  than  that,  I  can  not  depend  upon  it  at  all." 
But  would  he  be  right  ? 

Now,  all  these  are  admittedly  true.  The  Canon  had  no 
such  authentication  (so  far  as  we  know),  as  we  should  have 
insisted  upon  had  it  been  a  human  document  to  be  handed 
down  as  an  authority.  The  text  has  not  been  preserved  from 
error  in  transmission,  and  it  was  committed  to  a  language  of 
limited  powers  of  expression  and  to  a  script  peculiarly  liable 
to  ambiguity.  But  we  all  hold  that  it  is,  nevertheless,  to  us 
the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  If  we  suppose  that 
the  human  factor,  even  in  the  autographs,  showed  traces  of 
human  fallibility,  I  do  not  see  that  that  invalidates  the  rule 
of  faith. 

But  now  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  certain  grave  con- 
sequences of  insisting  that  inspiration  implies  absolute  iner- 
rancy. The  first  is  that  this  insistance  may  drive  some  to  an 
litter  rejection  of  the  whole  revelation,  because  they  suppose 
themselves  to  discover  a  single  contradiction  in  the  Scriptures 
themselves  or  a  single  statement  that  conflicts  with  the  estab- 
lished facts  of  natural  science  or  of  profane  history.  Dr. 
Evans  has  already  alluded  to  this,   and   I  will  not  enlarge 


Bini.ICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    IN'SPIRA  IK  )N. 


•»5 


upon  it.  Only  it  should  be  observed  that  the  chances  for 
error  in  the  Old  Testament  are  much  greater  than  in  the 
New  Testament.  The  Old  Testament  took  form  in  a  cruder 
state  of  society  and  its  books  cover  a  much  greater  jjcriod 
of  time  than  is  the  case  in  the  New  Testament.  We  shouUl 
naturally  expect  greater  difficulties  in  the  Old  Testament. 
The  caution  exercised  with  regard  to  a  priori  theories  in  re- 
gard to  the  New  Testament  commends  itself  with  double 
force  when  we  come  to  the  Old. 

A  second  danger  of  insisting  upon  the  doctrine  of  iner- 
rancy is  that  it  reverses  the  order  of  the  two  principles  of  the 
Protestant  Church.  As  we  have  seen,  the  vital  principle  of 
the  Reformation  was  Justification  by  Faith.  The  formative 
principle  was  the  sufficiency  of  Scripture  as  the  Rule  of  Faith. 
If,  now,  you  invert  them  and  put  the  Scripture  first,  do 
you  not  endanger  the  faith  in  Christ  ?  In  practice  I  do  not 
believe  this  is  done.  If  an  iaquirer  comes  to  a  pastor,  he  is 
not  met  with  the  demand  to  believe  the  Scripture  to  be  in- 
fallible in  its  every  statement,  but  with  the  exhortation  to  be- 
lieve in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  this  on  the  ground  of  the 
simple  historical  testimony  of  the  Scriptures  as  the  testimony 
of  honest  witnesses.  But,  is  not  the  central  point  in  the 
Christian  life  the  central  point  in  theology  also  ?  And  I  will 
confess  here  the  surprise  with  which  I  discovered  what  I  think 
to  be  a  grave  defect  in  the  theology  of  the  distinguished  Dr. 
Hodge.  If  you  will  read  that  author's  discussion  of  the  sub- 
ject of  Faith,  you  will  acknowledge,  I  think,  that  it  suffers 
from  just  this  defect.  Dr.  Hodge  defines  faith  as  "the  per- 
suasion of  the  truth  founded  on  testimony,"  and  then  adds: 
"The  faith  of  the  Christian  is  the  persuasion  of  the  truth  of 
the  facts  and  doctrines  recorded  in  the  Scriptures  on  the  tes- 
timony of  God.*' '  A  little  later  he  says  that  the  faith  whi.  h 
secures  eternal  life  "  is  founded   not   on   the   external   or  the 


Systematic  Theology,  III,  pp.  67,  68. 


Il6  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

moral  evidence  of  the  truth,  but  on  the  testimony  of  the 
Spirit  with  and  by  the  truth  to  the  renewed  soul."  Further 
on  he  gives  the  correct  definition  :  "  To  believe  that  Christ 
is  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  .  .  .  is  to  receive  Him  as 
our  God.  This  includes  the  apprehension  and  conviction  of 
His  divine  glory  and  the  adoring  reverence,  love,  confidence, 
and  submission,  which  are  due  to  God  alone."  But  how  this 
can  be  reconciled  with  the  other  definition,  I  do  not  see. 
But  suppose  they  mean  the  same  thing.  Dr.  Hodge,  as  we 
have  seen,  declares  all  the  assertions  of  Scripture  free  from 
error.  If,  now,  faith  is  believing  the  facts  and  doctrines 
recorded  in  the  Scriptures  on  the  testimony  Oi  God,  the  life 
of  faith  becomes  simply  a  mental  effort  to  hold  on  to  these 
facts.  The  young  Christian  studies  his  Bible  and  finds  some 
things  which  seem  to  him  contradictory.  According  to  this 
theory,  he  must  believe  there  is  no  error  or  he  loses  his 
Christian  faith.  He  must  hold  on  to  the  Bible  (it  will  be 
said)  no  matter  what  science  says  or  secular  history,  or  the 
evidence  of  his  own  common  sense.  This  is  not  the  faith  of 
Luther  or  of  Paul  or  of  the  Shorter  Catechism  which  declares 
that  "  Faith  in  Jesus  Christ  is  a  saving  grace,  whereby  we  re- 
ceive and  rest  upon  ///;//  alone  for  salvation  as  he  is  offered  to 
us  in  the  Gospel."  What  the  pastor  in  his  ministrations  de- 
sires to  awaken  and  foster  in  his  converts  is  t]iis  faith  in  Jesus 
Christ. 

All  Scripture  is  God-inspired — true !  But  the  remarkable 
thing  is  that  the  text  affirms  more  than  this.  All  Scripture  is 
not  only  God-inspired,  but  all  Scripture  is  ^'profitable  for 
teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction,  which  is 
in  righteousness  :  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  complete, 
furnished  completely  unto  every  good  work."  This  seems  to 
me  the  hardest  part  of  it.  I  find  no  difficulty  in  supposing 
the  list  of  Dukes  of  Edom  God-inspired,  even  though  in  the 
original  autograph  it  had  some  names  wrongly  placed.  But 
do  you  make  it  profitable  for  instruction  in   righteousness? 


BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHU'    ANU    INbl'lRATION.  u; 

Do  you  make  it  profitable'  to  yourself  for  completely  furnish- 
uig  yourself  to  every  good  work?  U  not,  you  can  not 
lightly  condemn  me  for  not  drawing  your  deduction  from  iuj 
inspiration.  Surely,  you  would  not  allow  me  to  censure  you 
lor  not  practicing  upon  your  own  confession   of  it5   profjt- 

'  Every  one  knows  that  the  profitableness  of  all  Scripture  is  not  real- 
ized  in  ordinary  Christian  experience.  A  brilliant  lecturer  says  that 
once,  when  eating  a  very  fine  shad,  one  of  the  company  began  to  nucs- 
t.on  h.m  about  his  faith  in  Scripture.  The  questioner  held  up  one 
difficulty  after  another  and  asked,  "  What  do  you  do  with  this.>"  The 
reply  was:  "1  treat  it  as  I  do  the  bones  in  my  fish-I  quietly  lay  ,t 
one  side."  In  practice,  this  is  what  every  one  docs.  The  soul  does 
not  /eeJ  on  genealogical  tables  or  lists  of  forgotten  kings,  no  matter 
how  strenuously  it  believes  that  they  are  all  profitable  for  instruction 
in  righteousness.  Nor  does  the  preacher  make  use  of  these  in  his 
work— though  there  is  a  tradition  that  a  sermon  was  once  preached  on 
the  "nine  and  twenty  knives"  brought  up  from  the  captivity,  and 
another  on  "the  night-hawk,  the  owl,  and  the  cuckoo,"  from  the  list 
of  unclean  birds.  In  practical  Christian  experience  and  edification, 
some  things  in  the  Bible  are  quietly  left  at  one  side. 

Now,  if  a  comparative  anatomist  were  to  study  the  shad,  the  bones 
would  become  of  the  first  importance  to  him.  It  would  hardly  be 
necessary  for  the  bystander  to  remonstrate  with  him  for  spending  so 
much  time  on  the  bones  which  contain  no  nutriment.  But  we,  as  stu- 
dents of  the  Scripture,  are  precisely  i»  this  condition.  We  suppose 
the  very  things  which  the  ordinary  Christian  may  quietly  leave  unused 
— we  suppose  these  to  throw  light  on  the  siruc/ttre  o(  Scnplure.  When 
we  bring  them  forward  with  this  purpose,  we  are  met  by  the  assertion 
that  these  can  not  be  what  they  seem  to  be — discrepancies  can  not 
exist.  In  other  words,  it  is  persistently  asserted  that  there  can  be  no 
bones  in  the  fish — that  it  is  all  good  ;  therefore  we  must  swallow 
bones  and  all,  or  at  least  must  pound  the  bones  fine  by  some  reconcil- 
ing hypothesis  and  then  declare  them  good  meat. 

The  Lord  Jesus  at  one  time  met  the  disciples  when  they  were  hun- 
gry and  gave  them  a  piece  of  fish  broiled  on  the  coals.  Were  he  to 
bring  me  such  a  gift,  I  should  expect  to  find  it  excellent  fish.  Should 
I  therefore  expect  to  find  it  unlike  any  other  fish  in  structure? 
Would  it  be  disloyalty  to  him  to  stop  and  look  for  the  bimes  ? 


Il8  BIBLICAL    SCHOLARSHIP    AND    INSPIRATION. 

ableness.  How  to  make  all  Scripture  profitable  is  at  least  as 
important  a  question  and  it  is  a  more  practical  question  than 
how  to  establish  its  absolute  inerrancy. 

And  here  is  to  the  theological  teacher  the  most  serious 
question  of  all.  To  insist  upon  a  constant  assertion  and  de- 
fense of  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture  is  to  turn  the  whole 
science  of  exegesis  into  a  study  of  harmonistics.  No  doubt 
infidelity  is  constantly  alleging  contradictions  and  discrepan- 
cies that  do  not  exist.  For  that  reason,  I  would  be  slow  to 
urge  those  which  I  suppose  to  exist.  But  to  spend  one's 
time  in  hypotheses  designed  to  show  how  discrepancies  may 
be  reconciled  is  generally  a  fruitless  task. 

The  truth  frankly  acknowledged  is  the  truth's  own  best  de- 
fense. But  it  is  to  be  expected  that  we  will  discover  some 
new  truth.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  special  student  to  announce 
the  discovery.  That  he  will  sometimes  be  hasty,  sometimes 
will  be  one-sided,  is  to  be  expected.  And  it  is  to  be  expected 
that  his  positions  will  be  attacked.  It  is  desirable  that  they 
be  attacked,  for  it  is  by  discussion  that  the  truth  is  advanced. 
I  am  sure  no  one  in  a  theological  chair  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  could  object  to  the  sharpest  discussion  of  his  pub- 
lished views.  Indeed,  he  would  welcome  it,  as  a  means  of 
clarifying  his  own  statements.  But  the  discussion  ought  to 
discuss  statements  and  not  persons.  In  this  revision  year, 
we  have  heard  much  of  the  liberty  given  by  the  subscription 
to  our  standards.  Is  this  a  liberty  to  those  only  who  agree 
with  us,  to  those  only  who  do  not  believe  the  Pope  of  Rome 
to  be  Antichrist,  or  even  to  those  only  who  investigate  the 
problems  of  theology  "  in  order  to  vindicate  the  truth  as  held 
by  our  Church  ?"  These  questions  must  be  answered  by  our 
pastors  and  elders,  for  they  bear  rule  in  the  House  of  God. 
For  one,  I  can  say  I  want  to  have  them  answered  rightly, 
not  only  for  my  own  sake  and  the  sake  of  the  institution  I 
serve,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  whole  Church  of  God  and  for 


BIHLICAL    SCHOLAkSlIII'    AND    INSriKA  I  KjN.  h^ 

the  sake  of  His  truth.  And  so  I  end  where  my  friend  began. 
In  order  to  progress,  there  must  be  sympathy  and  confidence 
between  pastors  and  professors.  The  work  is  one.  Our 
aim  is  one.  We  must  all  account  to  the  one  Lord,  "whose 
we  are  and  whom  we  serve."  May  He  help  us  to  know  His 
truth  and  to  do  His  will ! 


APPENDIX. 


I. 

'The  following  article  from  the  British  Weekly  of  April  25, 
1890,  has  been  slightly  abbreviated,  but  without  altering  the 
substance : 

THE    ENGLISH    PKESHYTKRI ANS    AND    INSPIRATION. 

We  f3rwarded  the  new  Article  on  Inspiration,  which,  for 
convenience  sake,  may  be  reprinted,  to  four  eminent  professors 
of  theology  in  Scotland.  They  have  kindly  sent  us  the  criti- 
cisms which  follow  the  Article. 


"We  believe  that  God,  Who  manifests  Himself  in  creation 
and  providence,  and  especially  in  the  spirit  of  man,  has  been 
pleased  to  reveal  His  mind  and  will  for  our  salvation  at  suc- 
cessive periods  and  in  various  ways ;  and  that  this  Revelation 
has  been,  so  far  as  needful,  committed  to  writing  by  men  in- 
spired of  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  which  are  therefore  to  be  devoutly  studied 
by  all  as  God's  written  Word  or  message  to  mankind;  and 
we  reverently  acknowledge  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the 
Scriptures  to  be  the  Supreme  Judge  in  questions  of  faith  and 
duty." 

CRITICISMS. 

I.    It  seems  to  me  to  be  a  fair  and  distinct  statement  <»f  the 

(lai) 


doctrine  of  the  Reformers,  who  held  Scripture  to  be  the  Word 
of  God,  and  of  Divine  authority  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  duty, 
but  did  not  hesitate  to  admit  inaccuracies  or  error  in  it  on 
matters  not  affecting  these.  It  does  not,  I  think,  commit 
those  who  accept  it  to  the  view  that  there  can  be  no  error  at 
all  in  Scripture,  even  of  the  most  trivial  kind,  and,  like  the 
Westminster  Confession,  it  makes  no  difference  in  regard  to 
infallibility  between  Scripture  as  originally  given  and  as  we 
have  it  now.  It  seems  compatible  with  any  results  of  a  rev- 
erent and  believing  criticism  as  to  the  authorship,  date,  and 
character  of  the  several  parts  of  Scripture  that  do  not  imply 
bad  faith  in  the  inspired  writers. 

2.  The  English  article  consists  of  four  propositions,  (i)  It 
affirms  that  God  has  made  a  fourfold  revelation  of  Himself, 
(a)  in  creation,  (d)  in  providence,  (c)  in  the  spirit  of  man,  and 
likewise,  (d)  a  revelation  designed  for  the  salvation  of  man, 
implying  that  the  other  three  revelations  are  insufficient  for 
this  purpose. 

It  affirms  that  the  Scriptures  are  to  be  devoutly  studied  by 
all  as  "God's  written  Word  or  message  to  mankind.  A  writ- 
ten word  or  message  might  seem  at  first  to  exclude  the  idea 
of  even  a  slight  inaccuracy.  But  this  could  only  be  if  the 
word  or  message  was  dictated  to  the  writers.  The  article  says 
that  the  writers  were  inspired  of  God,  but  this  conveys  a  dif- 
ferent idea  from  that  of  dictation.  An  inspired  written  mes- 
sage is  not  equivalent  to  a  dictated  written  message.  A  dic- 
tated written  message  leaves  no  room  for  even  the  slightest 
inaccuracy;  not  so  with  an  inspired  written  message.  If  the 
message  had  been  dictated  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  it  would 
have  been  blasphemy  to  ascribe  to  it  the  slightest  vestige  of 
inaccuracy.  But  seeing  that  the  message  was  not  dictated 
but  inspired,  the  case  is  different.  It  is  open  to  us  to  deduce 
from  the  record  itself  whether  any  place  was  left  for  any  inac- 
curacies arising  from  such  causes  as  imperfect  human  obser- 


APPENDIX. 


»»3 

vation  or  imperfect  human  memory.  It  is  certainly  the  con- 
viction of  many  believing  men  that  under  the  inspiration  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  there  was  left  room  for  these.  It  is  a  con- 
viction that  harmonizes  with  the  most  profound  reverence  for 
the  Spirit  of  truth ;  for  it  holds  that  it  is  more  honorable  to 
Him  to  ascribe  the  undoubted  discrepancies  of  Scripture  to 
the  imperfection  of  human  instruments  than  to  any  other 
cause  that  can  be  assigned. 

3.  I  think  that  the  careful  statements,  concerning  Hc^ly 
Scripture,  in  the  Westminster  Confession  itself,  can  be  shown 
to  be  free  from  the  perils  and  difficulties  of  the  inerrancy- 
theory  as  held  by  the  advocates  of  verbal  or  literal  inspiration. 
This  recast  paragraph,  though  a  very  general,  is  a  fairly  suc- 
cessful reproduction  of  the  Westminster  statement.  In  my 
view,  therefore,  it  steers  entirely  clear  of  the  dangerous  posi- 
tion which  would  stake  the  Divine  character  of  the  Bible  on 
literal  or  verbal  inerrancy.  It  would  have  done  so  equally 
well,  had  it  even  laid  more  stress  on  the  infallible  truth  and 
supreme  authority  of  Scripture. 

4.  Another  venerable  and  eminent  theologian  sends  us  a 
long  letter  on  the  Article,  but  it  is  not  written  with  a  view  to 
publication.  He  warmly  approves  of  the  creed,  and  depre- 
cates the  raising  of  any  question  of  literal  infallibility,  main- 
taining that  it  is  not  the  duty  of  the  Church  to  say  that  there 
are  errors  in  Scripture,  even  although  it  knows  that  there 
are 


IT. 


As  a  help  to  such  of  our  readers  as  may  desire  suggestions 
respecting  the  best  and  most  available  authorities  (in  English) 
on  New  Testament  Criticism  and  Theology,  the  following 
brief  list  is  appended : 


124  APPENDIX. 

For  Criticism — Bleek's  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament 
(2  vols.:  Clark);  Reuss :  History  of  the  New  Testament  (2 
vols.:  Houghton);  Weiss:  Manual  of  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament  (2  vols.:  Hodder);  Salmon:  Introduction  to  the 
Study  of  the  Books  of  the  New  Testament  (Young);  Dods : 
Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  New  Testament  (Hodder); 
*  Weiss  :  Life  of  Christ  (Clark);  Schiirer :  History  of  the  Jewish 
People  in  the  Time  of  Christ ;  Lightfoot :  Supernatural  Re- 
ligion (a  reply);  Sanday:  Gospels  in  the  Second  Century 
(Macmillan);  Westcott :  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Four 
Gospels  (Macmillan);  A.  Wright:  The  Composition  of  the 
Four  Gospels ;  Rushbrooke's  Synopticon  (Macmillan);  Schaff: 
Companion  to  the  Greek  Testament  (Harper);  Westcott  and 
Hort :  The  New  Test,  in  the  Original  Greek  (Vol.  II :  Har- 
per); Immer :  Hermeneutics  of  the  New  Test.  (Andover); 
Charteris:  The  N.  T.  Scriptures:  their  claims,  history,  and 
authority  (Carter);  Articles  in  Smith's  Bible  Dictionary,  En- 
cyclop.  Britannica,  Schaf-Herzog  Encyclopaedia,  McClintock 
and  Strong  (esp.  on  Gospels,  Acts,  Apocalypse,  Matthew, 
Mark,  Luke,  John,  Paul,  Peter,  James,  Jude,  Hebrews);  A. 
B.  Bruce:  The  Presbyterian  Review,  October,  1884.  For 
German  and  foreign  literature,  see  esp.  Holtzmann's  Einleit- 
ung  in  das  N.  T. 

For  New  Test.  Theology — Bernard's  Progress  of  Doctrine 
in  the  N.  T.  (Macmillan);  Reuss:  History  of  Christian  The- 
ology in  the  Apostolic  Age  (2  vols. :  Hodder);  Weiss :  Biblical 
Theology  of  the  New  Testament  (2  vols.:  Clark);  Schmid : 
Biblical  Theology  of  the  N.  T.  (Clark);  Van  Oosterze :  The- 
ology of  the  N.  T.  (Dodd);  J.  P.  Thompson  :  Theology  of 
Christ  (Scribner);  Pfleiderer:  Paulinism  (2  vols.:  Williams); 
Irons :  Christianity  as  taught  by  St.  Paul ;  Lias :  Doctrinal 
System  of  John  ;  Gebhardt:  The  Doctrine  of  the  Apocalypse; 
Delitzsch  :  Biblical  Psychology ;  Beck  :  Biblical  Psychology ; 
Harless:  Christian  Ethics;  Cremer's  Bibiico-Theological  Lex- 


AHHKNDIX.  125 

icon  of  the  N.  T.  Greek  (5th  German  Ed.;  2d  Engl.  Ed,, 
with  Supplement). 

See  more  fully  the  Catalogue  of  Hooks  in  Briggs's  Biblical 
Study. 

For  the  Old  Testament,  the  following  may  be  consulted : 
Isaac  Taylor,  Spirit  of  the  Hebrew  Poetry,  N.  V.,  1862. 
Stanley,  Lectures  on  the  Jewish  Church,  N.  Y.,  1871. 
Cheyne,  The  Hallowing  of  Criticism,  1888.  Sanday,  The 
Oracles  of  God,  1S90.  Oehler,  Theology  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, N.  Y.,  1883.  Von  Orelli,  The  Old  Testament  Proph- 
ecy of  the  Consummation  of  God's  Kingdom  (Scribner  and 
Welford).  Briggs,  Biblical  Study.  Cross,  Hints  to  English 
Readers  of  the  Old  Testament.  Schultz,  Old  Testament 
Theology,  is  promised  in  an  English  translation  shortly. 
Green,  Moses  and  the  Prophets  (a  reply  to  W.  Robertson 
Smith's  Prophets  of  Israel). 

On  special  points  of  Biblical  Theology  :  Riehni,  Messianic 
Prophecy,  1875.  Briggs,  Messianic  Prophecy,  N.  Y.,  1S86. 
Laidlaw,  The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Man,  Edinburgh,  1879. 
Cave,  The  Scriptural  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  Edinburgh, 
1891. 

On  critical  problems  in  particular  books :  Murray.  Origin 
and  Growth  of  the  Psalms,  N.  Y.,  1880.  Cox,  Commentary 
on  Job,  London,  1880.  Plumptre,  Ecclesiastes,  Cambridge, 
1 881.  Wright,  The  Book  of  Koheleth,  London,  1883. 
Wright,  Zechariah  and  His  Prophecies,  London,  1879. 
Cheyne,  The  Prophecies  of  Isaiah,  London  and  New  York, 
1881.  Driver,  Isaiah  and  His  Times.  Delitzsch,  Commen- 
tary on  Isaiah  (new  edition),  1891.  G.  A.  Smith,  The  Hook 
of  Isaiah,  1891.  Delitzsch,  New  Commentary  on  Genesis, 
1891. 

Special  problems  are  treated  by  :  George  Smith,  Chaldean 
Genesis;  and  Assyrian  Epyonym  Canon,  1875.  Schradcr, 
The  Cuneiform  Inscriptions  and  the  Old    Testament,  1889, 


126  APPENDIX. 

etc.     Toy,  The  Quotations  of  the  Old  Testament  in  the  New 
Testament. 

The  structure  of  the  Pentateuch  has  been  exhaustively 
discussed  by  Profs.  Harper  and  Green  in  Hebraica,  1889  and 
1890. 


